# Talk:Matthew Hale (jurist)

This needs copyediting for promotional tone. We should not be so effusive in Wikipedia's own voice. We can quote his fans saying nice things about him and we can summarise opinions about him but we should not be eulogising him in Wikipedia's own voice. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Examples please as (eg) I am not sure where we quote his fans, we do quote people of the time who held him in very high regard. We do reference the incredible influence he had on the law both during his time and famously afterwards. (We only have to look at the USA Supreme Court to see that)! The wording used throughout may well need a copyedit, but I know that some sections were arrived at following many discussions (sometimes heated) to arrive at this version.  Happy to assist once I understand what you mean. Thanks. Edmund Patrick –  confer 07:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
To give one egregious example, I think it is pretty obvious that a phrase like "Hale is universally considered an excellent judge and jurist, particularly due to his writings." is utterly ridiculous and does not belong in an encyclopaedia at all, unless it is a direct quotation attributed to somebody else. It should not be used in Wikipedia's own voice. I'm sure he had detractors. Everybody notable has detractors. In fact, I the only reason I looked him up in the first place is that I saw somebody talking about his horrible attitudes to women and I was surprised to see almost no critical coverage here at all. If nothing else this proves that consideration of his excellence is not "universal". Returning to my example, that sentence could be rendered more acceptable if it was turned into something like "Hale was highly regarded and remains influential as a judge and jurist, particularly due to his writings." followed by references to back that up. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Good example, time for a deep breath and dive in. As you say references needed. Edmund Patrick –  confer 12:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I rewrote some of the lead section. striking the passage "Hale was noted for his resistance to bribery and his willingness to make politically unpopular decisions which upheld the law" which may be true but is not in the body of the article and was not supported by references. Sources do mention his integrity, which is mentioned in the article. I think more balance could be provided by elaborating on the critiques of his published works, such as that of Andrew Amos. gobonobo + c 16:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree withDanielRigal, the term "universally considered" is inappropriate. time to reassess the article ? @Edmund Patrick for examples see: Amanda Taub. The 17th-Century English Judge Behind Abortion and Rape Rulings Today. NY Times. 2022/05/19.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I am afraid that I cannot access NY Times as it is behind a paywall but thanks Thanks for the pointer an excellent piece (I found on another site I assume a true copy?), which I am sure will be used as referenced points in this article.  There is much to do to bring this article to a point where it reflects the latest thoughts (all referenced of course), and as if to confirm his continual influences there will be long discussions; one only has to look at the ones concerning his own actions in his lifetime, let alone centuries later! Edmund Patrick –  confer 07:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I was reviewing this article for OTD when I saw that it had an "additional sources needed" orange banner at the top of the article. Has this concern been resolved? If not, should this go to WP:GAR? @MurrayGreshler: who added the banner. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)