Talk:R. E. Streeter

J.W?

I'm assuming this man was a Jehovah's Witness, and that he was someone fairly important in the hierarchy of that organization. If so, shouldn't the article say so? This is an encyclopaedia for the general public, after all, who'd be looking here because they'd never heard of the man. Swanny18 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says what he did: "founding fathers of the Pastoral Bible Institute and an original member of the editorial board of The Herald magazine." It may not be be important to you. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to establish notability. I’ve never heard of PBI, though I have heard of JW (the mention of Taze Russell was a clue), and I don’t think I’m alone in that; If this person is not part of the JW story then he needs something more to establish his notability. What do you have?

Also there is no reference to his Herald magazine that I can see on the page linked; can you clarify that at all? Swanny18 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it does establish notability very well. If you disagree than put it up for deletion, but it will be embarrassing for you in the end, it's obvious your ignorance of the subject. Green Cardamom (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding some sources; they’d probably qualify as self-referencing but I expect you’ll get away with it.

You also seem put out by the question about JW’s; as the article still says he: “in 1902 entered the pilgrim ministry under Pastor Charles Taze Russell” without further explanation you might want to clarify that, for the 99.9% of the worlds population who are as “ignorant” of the subject as you say I am.

And who says I want to delete this? I was trying to find a way to keep it...Swanny18 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JW didn't come into existence until 1931, after Streeter died! Your jumping to conclusions the article never makes. The best way to learn is to write about it. I suggest you go ahead and work on the article to clarify the points you are unclear about, most of the information you need is already on Wikipedia in other articles, and in the footnotes for this article. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. – consensus is not clear, so the previously stable title before the undiscussed move should be restored. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Elwood Streeter → R. E. Streeter – Move done without discussion. Sources show most common usage is R. E. Streeter GreenC 17:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Cardamom: Many people are oftenest referred to by initials & surname. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many people has the surname Streeter e.g R. C. Streeter and R. Streeter - John Belushi (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a dab problem if there were other R. E. Streeter but common usage is applicable. -- GreenC 04:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know how many people wear these initials - John Belushi (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig is of other Wikipedia articles only. -- GreenC 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources using R.E. Streeter to refer to this person: 1897 report, Memorials. Sources using R.E. Streeter for unrelated others: 1956 bulletin, academic "Robert E. Streeter" ([1][2]), yearbook. Sources using "Randolph Streeter": unrelated person from 1821, (unsure), (I don't know), (unsure). Find sources about this person isn't easy at the moment. Most of the sources I found are very old. I'll do my best to find newer sources if I can. George Ho (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources listed in the article - I've done a lot of research to find those sources. Other people using those initials, who don't have wikipedia articles, it doesn't matter for the purpose of disambiguation, since we only dab other Wikipedia articles, not every person ever born. There are many people named "John Smith" in the world but we don;t worry about them, only the one's on Wikipedia named John Smith. -- GreenC 17:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I appreciate your efforts on the article. However, to determine the naming of the article, sources using "R. E. Streeter" in reference to this person are very old and religion-based. As said before, other sources using "R. E. Streeter" may also refer to the other person, the academic. I might not oppose (not bolding it yet) the reversal back to "R.E. Streeter", but sources are not that widespread to make either name a commonly-used name. WP:NATURALDIS says not to use obscure names, but I'm unsure whether "R.E. Streeter" helps readers best. WP:IAR can be interpreted differently; whether it applies is... up to anyone here. Currently, I'm torn. George Ho (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are very old and religion-based .. Notabiility does not expire. Is there another R. E. Streeter on Wikipedia? The sources that discuss this topic all use R. E Streeter. That's how he was called historically. -- GreenC 02:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created Draft:Robert E. Streeter and have been using references. George Ho (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I guess the question re: this RM is if that Streeter was known by "R. E. Streeter" -- GreenC 15:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Robert E. Streeter passed the test and is now a mainspace! George Ho (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, if you want the title to use "R. E. Streeter" again, probably the parenthetical disambiguation might be a better way. I want to convert "R. E. Streeter" into a dabpage (or a redirect to "RE Streeter", a proposed dabpage). Here is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), which discusses clergymen. I'm thinking "(clergy)" or "(religious leader)". What are your other suggestions? George Ho (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this RE Streeter has commmon name status it would take precedent over a RE Streeter dab page (unless there is > 1 common name RE Streeter which I don't believe is the case). A dab page can still be made called R. E. Streeter (disambiguation). -- GreenC 20:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the academic from U of Chicago: footnotes of one book, footnotes of a book about copyediting, journal of Tamil studies, humanistic studies, some book. Uncertain: [3]. I tried Google, but I could not find any other significant being. As for the "(disambiguation)", A two-dab page with "(disambiguation)" is normally discouraged for reasons; see RM at Talk:Trent Kelly. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support move as R. E. Streeter is unquestionably his WP:COMMONNAME from a review of sources. The creation of Robert E. Streeter shouldn't complicate things, as that can be solved by adding a hatnote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:22, 8 February 2017 (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.