Talk:Warren G. Harding/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Daily Show

So, media portrayals doesn't include the reference from the Daily Show last night. Shouldn't we update that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7680:A0F:7881:94E8:E33D:557E (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

that may not be important enough to include.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Daily Show reference is any less important than the Sanctuary or Bob Newhart references. ~jcm 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those should be there either.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We should not include it. The Daily Show mention is trivia and has no place in an article on a US chief executive. Any editor attempting to move this article up to GA or FA status would have to remove the mention in order to get the page successfully reviewed. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to add what was revealed last night to Laddie Boy's page, but it was reverted as "vandalism," for some reason. 64.134.182.1 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be including "media portrayals" unless they help the reader understand Harding and his presidency. I'm not familiar with any of the entries on this list so it's hard for me to tell what should be in. I would say anything fictional should be removed, since it doesn't actually represent actual historical events. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: the recent series of edits/reverts concerning the Daily Show/Warren G. Harding connection: I don't agree that there is a clear consensus to exclude any mention of this particular portrayal of Harding. So far as I can tell there is no Wikipedia standard of which portrayals (a historical documentary that helps the reader understand? or a fictional rendering in some miniseries etc) are included or are not included, there is however editorial judgement as to which portrayals should be included or not. I do think that passing mentions of Harding, like the ones in Sanctuary or in the Bob Newhart Show are clearly trivia. The current turmoil over the Daily Show skit will probably pass but I thought some mention of it in the article's media portrayals section was better than the constant editing/revert cycle today over the entire article, all about Harding's (oh hahahahaHA how funny) relationship with his dog (Yes it's all a joke and SO funny). That's all. If the clear consensus is to exclude all mention of the matter, then that's how it should go. Shearonink (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I applied for full protection but that was declined. The last thing I want to do is edit war with contributors I respect. I've never considered whether we should allow an unconventional edit to stand while we're weathering a festival of intentional but good spirited mucking, but given the very practical comments by User:Shearonink above, I'm going to undo my own last edit here, and leave that user's version until something better comes along. For the record, I don't think a thirty-second comedy bit deserves a mention in the wikibiography of a POTUS, but for the nonce, it's better than juggling it in and out. BusterD (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would not the standard be consensus should be necessary for its inclusion, as for any controversial edit?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If the editorial consensus is for the Daily Show material to be included or for it to be excluded, I am fine with one or the other. I am just personally tired of the constant onslaught today of truly awful edits & content to both this article and to the Laddie Boy article. At this point, because of the media attention this trivia has become at least newsworthy (not sure of encyclopedic) it seems to me that *some* mention of the material makes sense. Shearonink (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Daily Show episode certainly does not belong in this article --It much better fits the article on the Daily Show itself. Or perhaps the article on Ghosts, or maybe the one on dogs?? Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The general procedure is to revert the insertion of controversial material, and leave it out until there is consensus to include it. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. This isn't policy, just a recommendation, but I do think we should leave this out until there is consensus to put it in. As I said I haven't seen the Daily Show skit, but if it was indeed 30 seconds of comedy involving Harding's dog, I strongly believe it should be left out. It may seem like hot news right now, but WP:NOTNEWS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Shearonink, I just ran a Google news search for Harding. One mention of the Stewart routine came up. I don't think there's been a rash of media coverage. We do have some people wanting to have a comedian's suggestion that Harding had sexual relations with his dog included in this article. I don't think it has any place in this article. Trivia such as "media portrayals" generally gets deleted or shunted aside into a lower level article as the presidents are upgraded to FA. This sheds no light on Harding.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The preponderance of comments here demonstrate that established editors don't want the Daily Show material inserted, so I've removed it. It appears the page has stabilized since yesterday and no longer needs this little section to head off repeated insertion. Since the May 13th episode is online, Daily Show fans can feel free to insert stuff in the Lazy, Sponge and Leech articles today and leave this biography page alone. It's becoming apparent there's not solid consensus for inclusion of the entire portrayals section. I'm going to edit boldly, and remove it. Anybody who wants to reinsert the section can measure consensus here before doing so. BusterD (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree re Daily Show. HOWEVER I think the "Media portrayals" is valuable and serious and should remain. How the serious media portrays presidents is a scholarly topic. Why does BusterD want it removed? Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It might help if you specified which entries should be kept. I am "doing the reading" for some article improvement, and I will likely roll the kept portrayals into some larger section.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Daily Show content being removed if that's the editorial consensus. However, I think that at least the content of the media portrayals section should be kept and disagree with everything being removed. From the comments here I am not seeing a clear consensus for the complete removal of the content. Also, I doubt that portrayals or cultural representations of Harding will ever reach enough of a critical mass to make a separate article necessary and (other than rolling the content into something like a separate "Cultural legacy' section) don't quite see how the content could be smoothly re-integrated into the article. Shearonink (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the other presidents I checked (JFK, Nixon, Garfield) have "media portrayal" sections. I'm leaning toward leaving this out, especially since I don't know which entries are significant. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok, I'll say it... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:IAR, etc. Why should what has been done on other presidential articles be done on this one? Why is there a prejudice against including any media portrayals? I somewhat agree with Kendall's post immediately above...I would be troubled if editors were somehow supposed to decide which appearances of Harding (or of other Presidents or even of other historical figures) are significant or insignificant. Personally, I'm stunned that there isn't a separate article or Category for George Washington's many appearances in various media. I'd probably want to include books, and I guess that would be fiction, as media - his media presence is represented in only 3 individual entries under "Other" of the George Washington (disambiguation) page. The true breadth of Washington's representations doesn't seem to be indicated within WIkipedia's pages... Shearonink (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess that would be true if we ignore Cultural depictions of George Washington, a page entirely dedicated to such inclusions. The reason we pay attention to other like pages is to discover what seems to pass the review process for good and featured class advancement. We shouldn't handicap a high visibility pagespace against improvement if we know other like pages don't include such a trivia section. What works seems to be putting all such portrayals into an article specifically purposed for including such information. BusterD (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed that but oh well...first mistake today lol. Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Florence

With the latest edit we now have two separate descriptions of the Warren & Florence courtship and marriage. The new one also puts the history out of chronological order. And I don't see why the photo of Florence should be removed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in progress. All will be smoothed out. It was my thought that the Florence image should be placed later in the article as it shows her as First Lady.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, see next talk page section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Photos

I moved a few photos into the sections where they fit chronologically. The photo of Florence seems out of place in the Starting in politics section (or maybe not if she really was the brains behind his entry in politics). We could remove it, move it to the Life at the White House section, find a photo of her at a younger age, or just leave it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll go on an image hunt later on. There were most likely images published when the Hardings came to Washington in 1915, and they'd be out of copyright. The Marion County Historical Society has some, judging from the credits in the bios, but I don't know anything about the copyrights.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Florence first marriage

The Florence Harding article claims she was married to DeWolfe and that there is a marriage certificate on file, which would mean it was not a common-law marriage. Anyone got sources for this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Dean at p. 18: "she filed legal papers to dissolve her common-law marriage to De Wolfe". Russell (p 83) says they "eloped" but also uses the term "marriage" soon after. Her American National Biography says "At the age of nineteen, Florence eloped with Henry "Pete" DeWolfe, the ne'er-do-well son of a prominent Ohio family. The quick marriage was necessitated by Florence's pregnancy; a son was born six months later." Sibley, which is the most recent bio of Florence (2009) says on p. 13 "She and Henry eloped in 1880, although it is not clear whether there was an actual wedding, because no record of one exists." and on the next page, "When she divorced Pete in May 1886 (apparently the court accepted her claim that they were married) ..." I don't have Anthony, which is another well-thought of bio of Florence. I think we should just leave it as "marriage" and ditch the common law.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. You can elope and still officially get married or not, so I wouldn't attach any significance to "elope." Also, if you have a common-law marriage and want to end it, you still need to get legally divorced. So I wouldn't attach any significance to "divorce" either. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it wasn't considered of great moment as being married to a divorcee was not an issue against Harding in 1920 in an age that was still sensitive about such things (Reagan BEING a divorcee was a minor issue against him in 1980, as I recall). Your edit looks good. I appreciate your help, I see where you've picked up on some of my glitches. I do intend to work my way through this article and get it promoted. Harding's 150th birthday is later this year and it would be nice to run it on the main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just thrilled to find I'm not the only Harding fan on the planet. Was just paying my respects at his Memorial a couple weeks ago. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I've missed going there, but it wasn't until about three years ago that I went to see the McKinley memorial in Canton.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Article size

Greetings, per Wikipedia:Article size this article may need either to be condensed or broken apart into seperate articles. When I ran the User:Dr_pda/prosesize it showed text size of 172Kb. Since politics is totally outside my area of expertise, I'm hoping another editor can address this issue and improve the article. Thanks in advance. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be right. It's bigger than either McKinley's or Garfield's articles, and almost as big as FDR's. (of course Garfield wasn't in office very long) Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am in process of renovating the article. I really haven't started cutting yet, but some of the presidential sections are over-detailed. I expect it to end up around 130K.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I really like the new lead section. Too often editors insert their own pet facts into the lead, and it grows to an unmanageable mess or becomes a battleground. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's still a little bare but it's the general idea. As I get deeper into Harding's presidency it may need some adjustment.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"which" vs "that"

Regarding this phrase: "...the results of a Senate investigation into campaign spending, which had just been released." The clause "which had just been released" simply supplies more information about the results, it is not a defining clause. So "which" is correct. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, not my strongest point of grammar.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Teapot Dome legality

Can we really say that Harding was not aware of the illegality of Teapot Dome? Does the cited source say this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Murray 1973, p. 125, "While Harding unquestionably had 'woman trouble' and must bear the onus for that, he ws not connected in any way with the political corruption that befouled his administration." Dean p. 159 "None of these investigations, however, implicated Warren Harding in any corrupt activity or wrongdoing." I think it's fair. Fall, in leasing the naval reserves, was doing what he believed was appropriate, as he supported development of them. It's just that he took a very large sum of money then from Doheny, who got the lease on Teapot Dome. Whether that was a loan, as Fall always claimed, or a bribe, was really the question, but Fall moving to develop Teapot Dome would not have been surprising to Harding.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe he didn't know his "friends" were corrupt. But I'm happy to go with the sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say. Fall invested the money in his ranch, and Harding never went there as president that I'm aware of. Almost done. Just the Senate, the mistresses, and the legacy. I hope to have those tomorrow. After that, I'll try to cut it somewhat. It's still too long. Then I'll list it at WP:PR and get people in to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

McCartney was convinced that Daugherty arranged for Harding to win as part of a deal where Sinclair and Doheny would pay millions to the RNC in exchange for Hamon being appointed to head Interior (replaced by Fall after Hamon was murdered). Have you read McCartney? It's a recent book and I can't decide whether he's unearthed new material or is just a sensationalist crackpot. I didn't check any of his sources. I see we don't use him as a source, and don't even mention Hamon. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Publisher's Weekly review says " McCartney adds nothing new to the story". None of the 50 top history journals reviewed the book. Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like "crackpot" then. But a Google books search turns up a dozen books that say the same thing, and a NYT article from March 8, 1924, which I will try to track down. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long. The story is traceable to Al Jennings, former train robber turned evangelist, who testified at the Teapot Dome investigation in 1924. Another oil man, J. B. French, made the same claim. Hays denied the story and called it "preposterous." As for the dozen books, I didn't check them, but they all came out after McCartney and I would guess they use him as a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read it. I think we have to avoid drawing conclusions from sources from the 1920s. There was a lot of loose speculation, some wistful thinking, and Harding wasn't there to defend himself and few others were minded to. Harding's papers weren't available til 1964.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Nan Britton sourcing

Would this source be considered RS? It says that child support payments from Harding were hand-delivered by the Secret Service and that Nan Britton sued the estate after his death for support. It implies that Harding referred to Britton as his "niece", and also specifies that The President's Daughter sold 90,000 copies and was thus a "best-seller". Can we use this, or perhaps corroborate the information otherwise? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is an RS, but to be used carefully. Plainly the author of that page believes Britton's specific allegations. Others do not. I'd rather not use the thing about the Secret Service, for that reason and because we already have the Secret Service guarding their trysts. I think this fades by comparison. I think the best seller figures are worth including to show how widespread the allegations became once Mencken and people like that began to publicize it. I'm not sure we should be looking to expand this article further on this subject, lest it become out of proportion of its importance in considering Harding because right now he has the public eye (but probably won't a week from Thursday, but the text will still be there).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply; I'll mull it over and promise not to over-inflate the passage. I'm mindful that Nan Britton and The President's Daughter also have their own separate pages. There's also this book to corroborate some details. And although a primary source, this is also perhaps of interest. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't argue with those, though surely that primary source must have attracted comment that could be used?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, he's careful to couch his recommendation in terms of knowing her family. In any event, I don't think the article needs it, and short of just adding these footnoted sources to bolster the reference section, the Britton passage doesn't really benefit from additional facts. So I'll leave it for now. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

What's up with changing "He and a friend put out a small newspaper" to "A friend and he put out a small newspaper" and "she and Warren Harding were courting" to "Warren Harding and she were courting"? As far as I know, either version is correct, but the new versions sound awkward. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've changed it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Sub-Saharan" vs. "African-American" ancestors

I changed "Later genetic testing showed that the Hardings lacked African-American forebears" to "Later genetic testing of Harding's descendants found that he lacked Sub-Saharan African forbears" in order to match what the NYT article cited in support of this passage states, and for clarity. It is a small and subtle distinction, but it's important to neither exceed nor reduce the scope of what a citation supports. --Threephi (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a distinction without much of a difference, I suppose, as they would have become African Americans when they came to America and (it appears not) contributed to Harding's descent. Either way is fine. Possibly we'll have more stories to work from soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly hope so — I'm fascinated by the details emerging so far. It's funny to think that, a century on, DNA evidence, heightened by Hollywood's "based on a true story" aesthetic (think "Titanic" wthout the boat, a daughter instead of a diamond) actually has a fair shot at renovating Harding's much-maligned political legacy. We'll see what happens with that. The takeaway? America adores a compelling love story with an epic sweep, and is ultimately forgiving. (And the JAZZ!!!) Mark my words, it's a great story. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This story is getting quite a bit of attention. We should have the number of hits today in a couple of hours or so, I'm guessing well into five figures, when on a sleepy Thursday in summer, we'd get less than average.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for changing it back to something close to what the source states. It seems an important distinction to me. Only a tiny fraction of all people from sub-Saharan Africa are African-American. And although unlikely in Harding's case, it is certainly possible for a man from Ohio to have a sub-Saharan ancestor who was not African-American. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a little more specificity in today's New York Times article, DNA Shows Warren Harding Wasn’t America’s First Black President. The test seems to rule out African-American ancestry in Harding's previous four generations (through his great-great-grandparents) with a 95% degree of likelihood. The article is also useful on the "black blood" rumor and its origins. It's particularly interesting that Harding himself never knew the definitive truth, telling a reporter, "“One of my ancestors may have jumped the fence." Any way to work that in? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a useful article that can be mined for a few nuggets.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've salted in a few facts and quotes hoping they don't disrupt the flow. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks OK to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

More publicity from the Harding campaign

This might be worth mining for the legacy section, perhaps a sentence on their conclusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved here from article

Trivia

• Harding is the only U.S. president to be elected on his birthday, November 2 (it was his 55th).
• Harding is the only president since the "Era of Good Feelings" to win his first term with more than 60% of the popular vote. Since 1920, only Franklin Roosevelt (1936), Lyndon Johnson (1964), and Richard Nixon (1972) have won more than 60% of the popular vote, but all three were incumbents.
• Harding was the first U.S. President to ride to his inauguration in an automobile.
• Harding was the first U.S. President to speak on the radio and have one in the White House.
• Harding is the only President to have been an active Rotarian. He attended the Washington, D.C. Club and addressed the 1923 Rotary International Convention in St. Louis, MO.
• Harding was known to host poker games at the White House. A legend has it that Harding once lost a set of White House china that had belonged to President Benjamin Harrison; White House historians have since debunked that myth. [1]
• Norman Thomas, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and longtime Socialist Party candidate for president, held a childhood job as a newsboy for Harding's Marion Daily Star, where he was supervised by Florence Harding.
• Harding's political rise is discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's book, "Blink". Gladwell attributes Harding's success and popularity to his commanding physical appearance, genial personality and deep gravelly speaking voice, which caused people to overlook or forgive his lack of competence. Gladwell called this the "Harding Factor." (Gladwell also credits Ohio "kingmaker" Harry Daugherty for much of Harding's success, but attributes Daugherty's interest to his perception of Harding's presence as well.)
• The School on the early 1990s Nickelodeon show, "The Adventures of Pete & Pete," was Warren G. Harding High
• Harding is the subject of the song "Warren Harding" by singer-songwriter Al Stewart on his album Past, Present and Future.
• Corruption in the Harding Administration is investigated by H.L. Mencken and James M. Cain in Roy Hoopes' novel, Our Man in Washington.
• Harding had the largest feet of any U.S. President. He wore size 14 shoes.
• In the PC game, Civilization IV, one receives a score at the end of games. One of them is a comparison with one of humanity's leaders, with Harding being the 3rd worst score that one can get.
• Despite the fact that Prohibition made it illegal, Harding served his friends alcohol.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

References

The Harding's Photos

Changed photos:

• 
• 

Better wording?

A revert today with the comment "better wording" restored a grammatically incorrect phrase, "Harding's body, along with that of his wife who died in 1924, rest today..." In this case, "Harding's body" is singular, but "rest" is third person plural. The "along with" part does not modify the number of the subject.

Also I prefer "city" instead of "town" since Ohio does not have a municipal entity "town." "Town" is fine in phrases like "small-town." Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection. I agree that "small town" should be used where needed to describe the sort of place Harding lived in, phrased in such a way that we do not again run afoul of the Ohio Constitution.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Warren G. Harding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Death date

I really don't think we need to give his death date twice in the first sentence. Once is enough. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ohio Senate

I am certain that Warren G. Harding served two terms in the Ohio Senate. Can we find out those dates and predecessor/successor? He was also the "Majority Leader" of the Ohio Senate before being elected LG. This should be reflected on his infocard. User:Sleyece (talk) 10:27, 05 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, at least in my view, state legislative positions are too minor to be listed in a presidential infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, especially where the subject of the article has more noteworthy achievements. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge's infobox goes all the way back to mayor of Northampton, and Jimmy Carter's includes state senate. But I don't feel strongly about this and Coolidge's infobox certainly is longer than I would like. Coincidentally I am just now reading the "State Senate" chapter of Russell. I don't think he says who the predecessor and successor were. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Was he majority leader? I wasn't sure that concept had really evolved by then, nor do I remember that from my reading. I don't feel strongly about the infobox and will stand aside if others do.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Russell says nothing about majority leader, but at that time it was uncommon for anyone to serve two terms. The five counties around Marion took turns electing a different candidate every term. So in Harding's second term he was one of only a few second term senators. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It is possible that he wasn't the "Majority Leader" as we would understand it in the 21st century, and I am retracting that assertion. I do think his two terms in the Ohio Senate should be denoted, however. There is clear precedent on other U.S. President pages. Barack Obama and Franklin Delano Roosevelt both have their time in state Senate noted in infobox. Abraham Lincoln even has his four terms in the Illinois House of Representatives noted. --Sleyece 11:42, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you in a position to state what district it was, and the predecessor and successor? I'm not going to argue too hard against it if so. It's only one office.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot find evidence for what is not already cited on the page. He served from 1899-1903, and he held two terms. I could contact someone, a historian maybe, or someone in the Ohio Legislature. Are the predecessor/successor that important for this office? --Sleyece 13:29, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to this, he represented the 13th district, at least in his second term. I just want to see, if it's added, it to have the same exactness as the other entries, including dates of office. Because if we don't have it to the same standard, the reader may wonder--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. Until we know who the predecessor and successor are, the infobox is fine the way it is. I don't want to do anything to undermine a featured article. --Sleyece(talk) 08:56, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find copies of the Senate Journal for the years before and after, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sleyece, Henry J. May is the predecessor and Samuel H. West successor. Term of office is January 1, 1900 until January 4, 1904. Found most of it in this book. And it was the 13th district.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wehwalt, The source looks right, great work! I went ahead and added it with a reference. Does that look like everything? (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Mellon's tax cuts

The recent edits re the Mellon tax cuts seem to be to be rather laudatory. I have some doubts a Keynesian would concur with the characterization of the tax cuts as jump starting the economy. I wonder if this is completely balanced? Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that it would be objective, considering that Keynes' research wasn't widely accepted in the U.S. until after the Presidency of FDR. User:Sleyece (talk) 10:30, 05 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the Schweikart and Allen position reflects the consensus of libertarian economic historians in 21st century. As for Keynesian historians -- their views deserve inclusion too, but so far no one has added or cited their views. On Libertarians esp at the Heritage Fdn have several reports that stress value of lowering taxes. ["The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates" by DJ Mitchell - Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, 1996; "The Laffer curve: Past, present, and future" by AB Laffer - Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, 2004]; "Warren Harding and the forgotten depression of 1920 by TE Woods - Intercollegiate Review, 2009 ]... as for Keynesians it's hard to find much--- Barton Bernstein has one sentence on the matter from 1968 ["The tax cut benefited the wealthy and failed to raise effective demand."] Rjensen (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox photo

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3

There has been some churn as to which photo to use in the infobox. I thought we had discussed this but can't find it in the archives. I prefer 1, because it shows more than just his face.

@Wehwalt: I think you may have selected the photo we've been using for the last year or so? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The third one is low-quality. Either of the first two would do fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

1 Roseohioresident (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember selecting it. People tend sometimes to change this things over time. I personally prefer #1, as his face is better lit and you get more of a sense of him, even if the finger is a bit unfortunate.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

He could have chosen a worse finger to elevate. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My preference is 1, the first one. —ADavidB 00:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warren G. Harding. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160730115701/http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj to http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 12:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Long shot" links to long shots in cinematography

It shouldn't link to anything at all, unless there's a wiktionary article for the phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.200.33 (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2017

Removed link.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Questionable interpretation under Mellon's Tax Cuts

Hello Everyone,

So I was looking at this page the other day, and I saw a view referenced that I thought was pretty dodgy. It is this bit:

"Libertarian historian Thomas Woods contends that the tax cuts implemented by President Harding ended the Depression of 1920–21 and were responsible for creating a decade-long expansion."

The part that I think is questionable is the bit about the tax cuts ending the Depression of 1920-21. Looking into it I noticed that the NEBR pegged the end of the Depression as being July 1921, but tax cuts were not passed until the Revenue Act of 1921 in November of 1921. I added some text noting the discrepancy between the cited claim and the timeline of events, which clearly indicates to me that the tax cuts could not have ended the Depression, as the Depression ended months before the tax cuts passed.

However, my revision has been shot down twice. Thoughts? It seems pretty cut and dried to me.

~~Rbrior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbrior (talk • contribs) 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? You would need to find another historian (or other reliable source) that contradicts Wood. You may also want to check Wood to make sure he actually said what we have attributed to him. And that Wood is not just some crackpot. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best way to respond, as I'm not very familiar with the these talk pages and such. I did check the WP:OR page, and it did not seem relevant, as I was not referring to any original research that I had published on my own, but to two legitimate sources which establish a time line that undermines the contention made.

The citing in the article would seem to indicate that perhaps Wood is being cited in another work (Schweikart and Allen's A Patriot's History of the United States). I actually have this work somewhere at home. I think that it definitely has a perspective, which is not to say that it is wrong, but I think that Wood's rather revisionist history of things like the Civil War would appeal to the angle that the authors are taking. Woods is well known (relatively) and has a pedigree, but that doesn't mean that he isn't a crackpot. It is somewhat concerning that perhaps the reference to Woods is not legitimate and that it perhaps has remained unquestioned for so long, let alone that if Woods did make such a contention that such a basic overlooking of the historical timeline has also not been picked up upon ~~Rbrior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbrior (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. This article is in way better shape than most. In many articles if you check what we say against the source, you'll find they say two completely different things. That often happens when some random editor decides he doesn't like what the cited source says, so he changes it and leaves the citation in. So I hope you'll forgive me if I'm overly cautious. It does appear that we are including Wood's opinion without actually citing him. If you can get to the bottom of this, with proper source citations, we will all be appreciative.

By the way, there is a similar problem at Depression of 1920–21, where I removed some material that was sourced to a self-published undergraduate research paper! Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added two tags to the material in question -- the first asks for a quote on the Woods claim and the other asks for a better source for the claim of the effectiveness of Mellon's actions. The source (apparently a textbook covering all of American history) received a scathing review by David Hoogland Noon at The History Teacher, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Aug., 2006), pp. 554-555 (the only review I could find at JSTOR). W/o a response in a month or so the material can probably be deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly we should remove the material. A lot of this, I think, was added after we got it to FA and if it's plausibly cited, and I don't have the book, I assume it's all good faith. I'd be happy with reverting to the way we had it at FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take it out. That entire paragraph was added post-FA. It even contradicts itself, assuming the depression of 1920–21 was over by 1922: "Based on this advice, Harding cut taxes, starting in 1922... tax cuts implemented by President Harding ended the Depression of 1920–21." Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole question of the economics of the Twenties and whether it was good or bad (given the Depression) is controversial enough that you are in my view correct to do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Not to jump onto you guys' discussion this is my first time talking about a page but as someone who has been studying history and wikipedia for 14+ years what is going on with pages like this? Like it is very clear to me that this page has been edited and written in a way to show a clear bias and viewpoint that a) is not held by most historians and b) shows personal belief and hyperbole. Not to mention sources are usually given in hard to come by books that most internet users are not going to take the time to research. Here is probably the most bothersome quote, ″"Libertarian historians Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen argue that, "Mellon's tax policies set the stage for the most amazing growth yet seen in America's already impressive economy."[148]″ I'm also someone who has a lot of experience in white hat and black hat seo techniques (as part of my job). I'm not sure how relevant you guys will feel this is to this topic but there has been mass editing of wikipedia articles with inaccurate information to help boost rankings of sites with certain viewpoints so that when you search certain topics those sites come up. Now when you search 1920s tax cuts two of the top sites are the heritage foundation and cato institute. Both right-leaning think tanks/lobbying groups. It's of the utmost importance that Wikipedia maintain it's neutrality during this time as it's often the only place people get their information as far as "facts" from. If that isn't an issue to be raised here then I apologize (again new).

I mean historians actually fault Mellon's tax cuts as one of the reasons for creating the huge concentration of wealth that ended up happening and being one of the factors for the great depression. From encyclopedia.com, ″The government did little to address the growing maldistribution of wealth. In fact, government action worsened the problem. Andrew Mellon (1855–1937), secretary of the treasury under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, was one of America's richest men. He saw to it that tax cuts for the wealthy passed through Congress in the 1920s, helping the rich retain even more of their wealth.″ --JaqenHghar80 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about what Rjensen wrote in the preceding section?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Schweikart is a leading historian of banking with numerous well-received books on that topic from established publishers. take a look for example at https://www.amazon.com/1913-1989-Encyclopedia-American-Business-Biography/dp/0816021945/ JaqenHghar80 wants to counter this scholarship with pop stuff -- a three sentence quote from encyclopedia.com-- an anonymous popular essay written by "nobody" without footnotes or evidence. The argument seems to be that the Harding-Mellon tax cuts of 1921 (which ended the special wartime taxes imposed to pay for the war) caused prosperity for 8 years ---but that 6 years after Harding died his tax cuts suddenly caused a worldwide depression. As for "growing maldistribution" maybe not. In 1913 the top 1% received 15.0% of national income. In 1921 = 13.5% 1929 = 14.6% Source: Historical Statistics of US series G337 p 302 online free at https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/histstatus/hstat1970_cen_1975_v1.pdf 00:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

References

At rest

As it says in the edit summary, "interred" is not correct. Please do not change this again without first getting consensus here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Death and Funeral

"Interred" is a better word to use here, instead of "rest". Warren and Florence Harding are not resting, and they are not sleeping, they are decomposing. Interred means to place a body in the ground, OR in a tomb, that's why interred is the correct word to use in the "Death and Funeral" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3011:E03:4400:DDBA:58E2:1936:5CF (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"Adulterous Bastard"

When I look up the wikipedia page of Warren Harding, the first result displays a false description. The description is this: "Warren Gamaliel Harding (November 2, 1865 – August 2, 1923) was an adulterous bastard." It clearly does not say that in the real article. I'm not sure what could be done about this, but it seems to be a pretty big issue. 69.126.250.20 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Some mixup at Google no doubt. They're thinking of Trump of course, but since they're both corrupt incompetents you can understand the confusion. EEng 15:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Today, a person using different IPs kept trying to add that line to the article. They were reverted many times, and now the article is protected. Google crawled the article while that edit was live. Google will crawl it again shortly and it won't appear in searches. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• As expected, a day later the search result does not show the epithet. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2019

Under "Scandals" section, and under "Teapot Dome" sub-section. The second sentence:

Like most of the administration's scandals, it came to public light after Harding's death, and he was not aware of the illegal aspects. 

It states that he was not aware of the illegal aspects, however no reference is given for this and I can not find anything about it anywhere else. It would be better to leave that part out instead of making an assertion without backup.

So I propose to change the following:

Like most of the administration's scandals, it came to public light after Harding's death, and he was not aware of the illegal aspects. 

To the following:

Like most of the administration's scandals, it came to public light after Harding's death. Skyturnrouge (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It is sourced to one of the references at the end of the paragraph. It is not necessary to put a footnote after each sentence so long as the footnotes at the end of the passage cover it. Probably from Murray but you'd have to check to be sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

DNA Testing

I modified the way this sentence was presented, because the linked source clearly states that it was the descendants on both sides, who ordered the tests, took them, and came to their own conclusions. Ancestry does not do this for you. They only do the test. Not determine what it means in particular cases.Wjhonson (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this in the book source?

Hey @Wehwalt:, is this edit material in the book? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound familiar.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor in question has edited a few other currency articles you might wanna check....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

In the succession boxes under Party Political Offices, please link the year 1910 to 1910 Ohio gubernatorial election, under the gubernatorial nominee box. Please also remove the category Category:Freemason United States Presidents as it was cut. 2601:241:301:4360:F0E9:5963:8E1D:C346 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Did those thanks.--22:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The formatting needs correction.

 Already done ~ Amkgp 💬 07:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

President Harding did not have Debs imprisoned, President Wilson did. Rfer to Debs Wiki page. 73.114.222.20 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The article never says it was Harding.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

I would like to add a nickname which was quite famous at the time of his apex. Please change the name to "Warren G. "MONO G" Harding (capital letters=the change I request). Thank You!Academicalfivedigest (talk) Academicalfivedigest (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Favonian (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

In the Death and funeral section, please change "He felt better the next day, as the train rushed to San Francisco; they arrived on the morning of July 29 and he insisted on walking from the train to the car, which rushed him to the Palace Hotel" to "He felt better the next day, on the train to San Francisco; they arrived on the morning of July 29 and he insisted on walking from the train to the car, which took him to the Palace Hotel". The repeated use of "rushed" suggests a degree of urgency, which is belied by the information that "he felt better" and "he insisted on walking". If they thought he was sick enough to rush anywhere, he would have been rushed to a hospital in Washington, not to a hotel in San Francisco. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:B46F:1988:5FD9:2947 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hospitals were not in 1923 what they are today. Harding could just as easily be treated at a hotel, and with greater privacy, than at a hospital, and the hotel suite was waiting for him. Doctors could be brought to see him, and were. It was better than a jolting train.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

But why put him on a jolting train to "rush" him 800 miles from Seattle to a hotel suite in San Francisco?? Was he not already in a hotel in Seattle? Did they have no doctors there? 2001:BB6:4713:4858:5C67:41B8:F5F:2EC3 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Terasail^[Talk] 13:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The technology of the times, probably could not have kept Harding alive. The first coronary bypass surgery was not until 1960. Penicillin was not discovered until 1928. Had Harding been alive today, modern technology probably would have saved him, or at least extended his presidency. Possibly Harding could have had an ECG, a machine that was around in 1911. Hospitals and hotels back then were probably not that different from each other. I think it is a good question of why Harding was not taken to a hospital. Maybe he should have been, but it might not have made much difference. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There was, and still is, San Francisco General Hospital when Harding arrived in San Francisco in 1923. It was rebuilt in 1915, so should have posed to be a modern medical facility. Why he was not taken there first is unknown. Harding's doctor, Charles E. Sawyer, was a homeopath. Maybe Sawyer was against hospitals or modern medicine. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this most interesting question in this article, at page 6.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why

Is this page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.71 (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Because there is a long history of vandalism and disruptive editing on the article page. You can register an account and after a period of time and a certain number of edits, you would be able to edit this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Apollo 15 50th anniversary?

Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4000:62E0:90AC:809:2705:8566 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What does Apollo 15 have to do with Harding? I should note that we will likely use Apollo 15, a FA as a TFA on its fiftieth anniversary this summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Repetition of year of death in lead sentence

Lawrence 979 is insisting on adding the language "in 1923" to the end of the opening sentence, repeating the year of death, which is given earlier in the sentence. As it is their responsibility to build consensus per WP:CONSENSUS, and he is undoing others' edits without edit summary, I'd like to ask them to engage here about this. MOS:REDUNDANCY enjoins us to avoid repetition in the first sentence, especially since it takes up the limited space the preview of articles through Google affords us.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The main reason i added "in 1923" was for consistency, as the other 7 presidents who died in office all include the year when they died in the opening sentence, regardless of the fact that the date of birth and date of death are all written earlier. It can also be useful in someone is looking at the preview, where the date of births and deaths are not shown.

BTW "in someone" was supposed to be "if someone"

I see your point on the Google preview. That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

"A member of the Republican Party, he was one of the most popular U.S. presidents to that point. He was a staunch advocate of racial equality, re-integrating the Federal workforce, giving a powerful speech on equal rights following the attack on Tulsa's 'Black Wall Street' at Pennsylvania's Lincoln University, and giving a powerful speech in Birmingham, Alabama on the need for true equality of opportunity for all. After his death, a number of scandals, including Teapot Dome, came to light, as did his extramarital affair with Nan Britton; those eroded his popular regard." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPRenaissanceman (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Is that a suggested amendment? That might be a little bit WP:UNDUE. Harding talked a good game on race, but he did de-emphasize the Dyer anti-lynching bill, as detailed in the Civil Rights and Immigration section.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2014 FS-Harding-Unc O 2000.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed

I have placed a tag in the last paragraph of the Start in politics subsection, which I intend to take care of shortly, assuming I can find the source for the "Boy orator." Hoppyh (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Images omitted to reduce overcrowding

The General election campaign section is overcrowded with images–text is sandwiched. MOS:IMAGES I have removed two, as follows. Hoppyh (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

ElectoralCollege1920.svg

FDR and James M Cox cph.3b03395.jpg

Ditto for the Inauguration and appointments section–the following image omitted. Hoppyh (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Harding swearing in.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2014 FS-Harding-Unc O 2000.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

More middle names possibly

He was called Winnie from having the middle name Winniepeg and they also might be more middle names 47.188.156.111 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it is a middle name of his.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

In the first paragraph of the lead, please change "diminished his regard" to "diminished his reputation". 2001:BB6:4713:4858:894F:3749:9A76:D201 (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Mellon's tax cuts need correction and citation

In the section for Mellon's tax cuts, there is the following two lines: "The top marginal rate was reduced annually in four stages from 73% in 1921 to 25% in 1925. Taxes were cut for lower incomes starting in 1923, and the lower rates substantially increased the money flowing to the treasury."

Looking at historical government revenue from the time, it dropped from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $3.6 billion in 1925. This is in direct contradiction to the "substantially increased the money flowing to the treasury" statement from the article. I believe the word "increased" should be changed to "decreased" as a correction. Or, if the meaning of the line is separate from federal revenues, it should be clarified and properly cited.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/ 68.99.5.182 (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Harry S. Truman which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Harding's 1916 keynote speech

The semi-protected lock will not permit me to edit the page to include this:

The New York Times was unimpressed with Harding's keynote address, leading the newspaper to make this faulty prediction: "His full name is Warren G. Harding and he is Senator from Ohio; but it is not necessary to burden one's memory with these statistics if one is merely trying to remember the names of persons likely to be president."

This quote can either be sourced to The New York Times, June 6, 1916, pg 1; or it can be sourced to this book: Pietrusza, David, 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2007, pg. 78 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4041:549A:CC00:19F2:9EDE:D952:9F74 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

It's cute, but we have enough material saying that Harding was not expected to be president. Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2023

Similary → similarly 212.36.169.245 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Warren Harding visited Hutchinson, Kansas 100 years ago

Per this new article (and its archive), Warren Harding visted Hutchinson Kansas 100 year ago on June 23, 1923. Four monuments honoring President Harding exist in the world: two are in Marion, Ohio (where he is interred) and two in Hutchinson, Kansas. Though I'm from Kansas, I wasn't aware of the monument until I read this article today. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• 1st stone monument, per the above article, is located on the north side of "4th Ave" west of the "Memorial Park Cemetery & Mausoleum" (5905 W 4th Ave) between "Whiteside Rd" and "Dead Rd" west of Hutchinson.
• 2nd simple monument is located in Hutchinson at the intersection of Walnut Street and Avenue B, per this article.

Thanks, that's probably not worth mentioning in this article due to the many stops he made going west on his final trip. If someone were to write an article on that trip, it might be worth it there. Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

just a comment

Warren Harding freed hundreds of political prisoners whom had been imprisoned under the "Alien and Sedition Act." in my own personal opinion, that might make him our best president of all time, in my book. seriously, number one. period. Yes, Lincoln saved the Union. FDR saved the country from the Depression, and then from war. George Washington navigated the country through the perilous initial period of its existence. Obama steered the country through the worst financial crisis since FDR's time. Yes, yes, and yes. Ok. So show me one president who is renowned for saving large quantities of prisoners from the US itself, rather than simply saving the country as a whole from a problem that was widely accepted as a major crisis, and I'll gladly knock Harding down to the #2 slot.

the above is obviously simply my own viewpoint on this. But this is Wikipedia, so our core job is to make sure the historical record is objectively fair and accurate, to whatever degree is possible when dealing with subjective interpretations by various sources, scholars, reliable publications, and studies. I invite any help and input. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with applauding Harding for that as long as there are scholarly sources to back it up. Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sm8900 I like the content but it's getting too long. Four and five paragraph quotes from articles are probably too long to be fair use, they risk getting cut as copyright violations. And could you please use the style of referencing used elsewhere in the article? Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

hi @Wehwalt. ok those are all valid points. I will try to shorten the excerpts as you request. I appreciate your feedback. I'm glad you like this content. thanks for your note. Sm8900 (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

re the referencing, actually I'm not as familiar with the reference citation tools as I probably should be. but I'm fine with trying to use the same format consistently that others have used. it may just take me a little period of time to modify the formatting. I'll try to look over the tools to do so. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

We have time. Thanks. Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the long quotes added this year violate MOS:QUOTE. Wikipedia should be written in our own words. I'm going to trim them back. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)