Revision as of 02:04, March 29, 2007

This Is A Suspect Article

Would someone be so kind as to fact-check it, including all citations, and repair it? It is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard. There are many factual inaccuracies. Thanks! --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 19:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

For the record—and since I’m sick of seeing “liberal” used to describe any behavior we don’t like—Richard does not describe himself as liberal—in fact in his post about this issue he writes: “I still don't consider myself a "liberal" (except in the classic sense) as I'm no fan of socialism nor do I buy the concept of "economic justice". ^[1]. “Liberal” has a meaning, and that meaning is not “anything I don’t like”.--Reginod 09:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not ideological; it is an issue of good faith. RobS 18:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not commenting on anything other than the misuse of the word “liberal” by TerryK and others on this site. I’m not commenting here on what Richard did, other people (like you) are making the same points I would make, and, as I see it, the remaining issue (how to make sure this doesn’t happen again) is one the administrative team is going to have to handle and is not something I have any expertise in and so is something I’m not going to say anything about. However, labeling Richard a “liberal” just because his behavior on this site was dishonest is a clear misuse of the word “liberal”—“liberal” does not mean “anyone we don’t like” and using it to mean that is something I find very distasteful and something I can do something about. Let me be clear, I condemn Richard’s actions I am not writing in support of them, I am making one point and one point only—that Richard did something wrong does not make him a “liberal”.--Reginod 19:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Has nothing to do with being a "liberal", etc. He was a subversive disinformation operative, one of dozens we see daily. RobS 19:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, this has nothing to do with Richard being “liberal”—but TerryK seems to disagree. He wrote that this article “ …is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard.” Had he not felt the need to ad the word “liberal” I would not have commented, but he did and so I felt the need to respond.--Reginod 19:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Everything he wrote is accurate. He just left other things out and phrased it in such a way that it comes off as a fawning lovenote to the guy instead of a genuine critique. Which, again, is the whole point. TPTB (and esp. Andy) were all content to let it stand b/c he had the "proper" political viewpoint. Andy even SysOped him b/c of this article. Isn't THAT the issue you should be more concerned about? It's like a doctor just revealed a tumor and you're more concerned about the doctor finding it than finding a cure.--Dave3172 09:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

So, in other words, leaving things out is honest and the mark of a scholar? He boasted in his own blog he added false citations. Talk around it all you like, gentlemen, obsfucate all you like. He and his work are dishonest. Self-admittedly so. Try making this a political debate all you want, but try it on someone who isn't a professional in the field. He joined voluntairly, particpated willingly, all for only one pupose, to play "gothcha". --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 17:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

And how long did you let it stay here? Why didn't you, or Andy, or anyone else check his work? Why, with such a supposedly shoddy article, was Richard made a SysOp? THESE are the things that should be concerning you, not that I found it funny or that he did it in the first place. It never could have happened if there were better controls and a lack of a denied - but painfully obvious - bias towards what passes for conservative thought these days.--Dave3172 19:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Do I agree this is a bad article? Last time I read it, yes. Did I say anything about the article in my comment? Last time I read it, no. My point was that some people on this site—and you TerryK are one of them – use “liberal” to mean “anything I don’t like”. That is not the meaning of the word “liberal”. Your claim that this article “...is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard” is false – the sysop Richard is not a liberal. That was my point. I said nothing about the quality of the article, nothing about the quality of Richard’s edits, nothing about Richard’s moral character, and nothing about anything else in your response. --Reginod 18:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

• Well, I apologize, Reginod, when I first read this page, it appeared you were not the only person posting here. My eyes are getting older, so perhaps they fool me now and then. :p And no matter what Richard says, he is not a Conservative, by any honest appraisal of his actions or words. Attacking me, and lumping me in with whoever else is helping on this project is deceitful and dishonest, and dis-proven by my posts. Shame on you. Spend some time fixing the article so it worthy of its topic, rather than just posting your disagreement with me. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

No you were right, and at first I thought you may not have been addressing me, but then I read your post again “Talk around it all you like, gentlemen, obsfucate all you like.” The key word there being “gentlemen”, plural, and there were only two people, besides you, involved in the discussion at the time—so I assumed you were responding to me and the other person who had commented. I never said that Richard was a conservative – I read his post and based on what he had to say I would call him centrist—there are more than two political positions that a person could hold and “liberal” does not mean “anyone who is not conservative”. You have done exactly what I have said you have done (misused the word “liberal” to mean something totally different from its meaning) and you’ve done it here—but that is all I am saying you have done. Anything I haven’t said, I haven’t said—I’ve said everything I wanted to and nothing more or less, so please do not try to read anything more than that into my words. As far as fixing the article goes, I’m not much of a historian (and most of my historical knowledge is about time periods other than the one President Harding was active during) and I’m working on something else at the moment, but I thought this was a teachable moment so I took some time out to make, what I believe to be, an important point.--Reginod 18:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

• So, your point would be to object to me or Andy not catching it before? Before what? I did, within a couple of days of first signing up. I have only been "here" for what? Two weeks? It is a red-herring argument to try and shift the blame to others, somehow saying the responsibility for the prank was other than Richard's blame. Please stop doing that. A place this large, no one group of people can keep on top of every article. I had it on my list, along with the other pages I have already edited or created, and since I am already working 60-80 hours per week at what earns me money, this place has to take a back seat. Your other point, if I am focusing properly, is that I am somehow misusing the term "Conservative" and "Liberal", by using them in other than their orthodox, dictionary meaning? I agree. Guilty 100% of doing that. That is the dynamic nature of language. Get used to it. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 22:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

How could this marvellous article have omitted to include a family-friendly description of the zany, madcap antics engaged in by Nan Britton and "Mr. Harding" in the White House coat closet, amongst the galoshes? Note: irony. Dpbsmith 20:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

even wikipedia admits harding was innocent here: "Warren G. Harding was not, directly, personally or otherwise, aware of the scandal. At the time of his death in 1923 he was just beginning to learn of problems deriving from the actions of his appointee". I think you expose your Liberal bias. Richard 21:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Uh, Nan Britton was associated with a different scandal, not Teapot Dome. She was... how to say this... the Monica Lewinsky of the Roaring Twenties. Dpbsmith 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

says harding's critics and the MSM. There is no unbiased source to substantiate that Richard 21:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ummm....Teapot Dome, anybody? Biggest scandal ever in an administration? --Dave3172 20:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

if you haven't noticed, the article is one big stupid joke... Splark 20:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes you say this is a joke?--Aschlafly 20:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"Mr. Harding's unassailable character was an exemplary example for all Americans" Keep in mind all of his scandals, extramarital affairs, and everything else that was omitted (including his admission to be not mentally up to the job). I think you're being tricked by a liberal smart-aleck. Splark 20:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

And do you have unbiased sources that actually substantiate those claims? This is just like McCarthy, who has been proven right by history. Richard 21:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Note that the article is referenced. If you feel other material that is sufficiently factual and ideologically compatible then please add it rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks against my character (calling me a liberal) Richard 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Splark, with all due respect, I think you've been duped by liberal history books. Harding was one of the most conservative presidents and was maligned by liberals because he was conservative. Do you buy everything the media says about other conservatives, such as Anita Bryant?--Aschlafly 21:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

With all due respect to you, Aschlafly, Warren Harding did say "I am not fit for this office and never should have been here." (http://www.trivia-library.com/b/u-s-president-warren-g-harding-quotes-from-and-about-harding.htm). Also, the article does not even include the Teapot Dome scandal, where Harding secretly leased naval oil-reserve lands to private companies. (http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0380900-00). While the media is quite biased against Harding, the article should at least include the Teapot Dome scandal and his two extramarital affairs (http://americanhistory.about.com/od/warrengharding/p/pHarding.htm) I know this site is biased, but the facts remain. -Splark 22:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the teapot dome issue should be handled. I'm researching it. Patience, the article didn't exist until today. Granted the teapot issue looks rather small compared to whitewater or other incidents and seems more appropriate for an article on the secretary of the interior than Mr. Harding, but it did bother him and happened on his watch so it should be at least mentioned. As for the quote, I've no idea where, when or if he actually said that. The affairs cannot be substantiated even wikipedia treats them skeptically and Britton seems to be a scurrilous character. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Harding#Extramarital_affairs). Let's fill out the article but not be mislead by period and later liberal biases and innuendo. Richard 22:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, we have a rule against gossip here. It's a distraction at best and misleading and destructive at worst. Truth is often impossible to determine and relevancy is often dubious.--Aschlafly 01:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahh I removed the death speculation. Probably qualifies. Richard 02:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

League of Nations

I disagree with the removal of the league of nations paragraph. It is true that the senate did not ratify the treaty under Wilson but part of the Harding landslide was that he promised to keep us out and the American people rejected Wilson's internationalist policies. In context of the presidency Harding was a key figure in keeping us out of the League. Had we avoided the Truman period we might have dodged the United Nations bullet as well. Richard 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. The Senate was already on record as opposing the League. Harding's assumption of the Presidency did nothing to enhance or reduce that. --Dave3172 23:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Avoiding the League had nothing to do with not entering the Spanish Revolution or the beginnings of WW2, especially WW2 since the League was for all intents defunct by 1939. Even had we joined, we'd have avoided either conflict. --Dave3172 23:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the reasons that the league went defunct was America refused to join it. Obviously it would have lasted longer and we'd have been involved in many conflicts sooner had we gotten involved. The United Nations proves that. Richard 23:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You are making an assumption that cannot be supported by the facts. US involvement in the League wouldn't have led to involvement in Spain. Neither France nor the UK got heavily involved though both were League members. One of the two countries that did (Germany) left the League.

And the WW2 contention is just not correct. By war's beginning the league was a joke. The war began due to occurences outside the League's influence. --Dave3172 23:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Gentlemen the fact is that the League was a joke because the most important nation, whose (former) leader proposed it, stayed out of it. Without the US, it was a European talking shop like the UN is today when not backed by US force (the real tea dome scandal). You can claim up and down that not joining the league didn't keep us out of wars that were not in our interest but history and the facts simply don't support you. Richard 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard, you can't claim a negative. You cannot prove that staying out of the League kept us out of Spain and the beginning of WW2. So, for that reason alone, you can't rightly add it here. It's not factually accurate. To be frank, its a ridiculous assertion.--Dave3172 00:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine we can leave it out. I think you're pushing your liberal agenda a bit far but I insist we DO include that he helped continue to keep us out and I added a reference TO that effect. We'll leave it to the reader's imagination the negative effects that would have come to pass if we had joined that unholy "supergovernment" as Harding referred to it. Richard 01:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard, I think the current paragraph is fine. And while you'll continue to deny it, I think this entry is one of the finest pieces of satire I've ever read. --Dave3172 07:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On big failure of the League of Nations was the inability to deal with the problem of "foreign national volunteers" entering Spain to engage in belligerency. A "foreign national volunteer" in 1936-38 would be akin to an "unlawful combatant" today. The discussion of "unlawful combatants" today always centers on the Geneva Convention of 1949, which had both the Spanish Civil War & WWII in perspective, but the problem in the 1936-38 period was persons from non-belligerent member states, like the US, UK, France, Netherlands, etc., crossing international boundaries to engage in an armed conflict within a League of Nations member state, not unlike Eygptians, Saudis, etc., crossing into Iraq to engage in active belligerency against coalition forces or the current iraq government.

Where the problem arises, is when these private combatant volunteers from a neutral (or even allied) state return home for R&R, and then go back into the zone of belligerncy, because then Spain, or Iraq today, can accuse the foreign government of harboring belligents engaged in actively trying to overthrow the legitimate government where the belligerncy is taking place. Hence what is possible is, "foreign national volunteers" or "unlawful combatants", whichever term you wish to use, can actually draw their native country into a war that the citizens and government of their native country have no interest in being invloved in (something like this scenario occurred in 1970 when the territory of Cambodia was being used to launch attacks against the government of South Vietnam). In my view, the League never saw this as a possiblity when it was created, failed to deal with it when it happened in the late 1930s, and is one of the major causes of the failure of the League. RobS 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Teapot

I added a section on the Teapot that puts most of the blame on Fall (where it belongs). I hope I wasn't too unfair to Robert M. LaFollette (Sr). Also do you think it is inappropriate to mention the innuendo around Harding's death and its possible connection to Teapot? I tried to balance that out by making it clear the rumors were instantiated, but the fact is that his death did cause loads of speculation. I felt it should be treated. Richard 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you think of this?

Too much of a hatchet job? Or a reasonable mainstream appraisal? Dpbsmith 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Frederick Lewis Allen wrote in 1931 that

Under his imposing exterior he was just a common small-town man, an "average sensual man," the sort of man who likes nothing better in the world than to be with the old bunch when they gather at Joe's place for an all-Saturday-night session, with waistcoats unbuttoned and cigars between their teeth and an ample supply of bottles at hand.... Even making allowance for the refraction of Harding's personality through that of Nan Britton, [in her book] one sees with deadly clarify the essential ordinariness of the man, the commonness of his "Gee, dearie" and "Say, you darling," his being swindled out of a hundred dollars by card sharpers on a train ride... after he had reached the White House, the rowdies of the Ohio gang were fundamentally his sort.^[2]

What needs to be noted is the conservativism of Harding's day consisted of these two things: isolationism and protectionism. This is what got him elected, and this is what he stood for. Today, both these concepts have been entirely rejected by closed minded stuffed-shirt conservatives who are unwilling to change. The Republican Party has repudiated these ideas. Now, isolationism and protectionsim still exist in America, a few Republicans & conservatives like Buchanan, or Ross Perot, or Socialists like Richard Gebphardt embrace protectionism; isolationism is the dominant view among the so-called "liberal left" anti-war movement. But the dominant "conservative" attitudes of Harding's era bare scant resemblance to the dominant conservative views of today.

Oh, goodness, I didn't want to get into the let's-boost-Harding/let's-bash-Harding thing. I was just thinking we could use something or other about what the man's personality was like. Taylor writing in 1931 would have been close enough to have been in the milieu and distant enough to have some objectivity. In case it isn't clear I'd like to put this in the article, but I wanted to get some talk about it first. I know that Frederick Lewis Allen "Only Yesterday" is famous and frequently referred to (and a very good read) but I don't know Allen's own politics. Dpbsmith 21:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm.... "Frederick Lewis Allen is best known as the sharp-eyed editor of Harper's magazine. Through Harper's--and the several books and articles he wrote--Allen both chronicled and shaped American journalism in the twentieth century.... Sam Riley, in an article for Dictionary of Literary Biography, suggested, "Allen might be described as a New England, Ivy League gentleman editor." (Contemporary Authors Online) Doesn't sound grotesquely liberal or conservative to me... Dpbsmith 21:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well this is an important article in showing how the history of conservativism has evolved; when we see that he (1) did not want entaglements in foreign wars, (2) was anti-free trade, and (3) carried on extra-materal affairs in the White House, he doesn't look much like what we'd call a conservative at all. In fact, he looks much the opposite. RobS 21:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

References

1. ↑ Richard’s post [1]
2. ↑ Allen, Frederick Lewis (1931), Only Yesterday, ch. VI, "Harding and the Scandals"