Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 "Fascistic"  
44 comments  


1.1  Consensus needed for "fascistic"  







2 Possible weasel wording added to the lead, unsupported context  
7 comments  




3 Paragraph breaks in lead  
9 comments  




4 Carl Weiss  
3 comments  




5 Mention of Huey Long, as he is in Kaiserreich and Kaiserredux  
6 comments  













Talk:Huey Long: Difference between revisions




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 





Help
 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Browse history interactively
 Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
 
(28 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 41: Line 41:

|otd3date =2020-09-08|otd3oldid =977349741

|otd3date =2020-09-08|otd3oldid =977349741

}}

}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Long, Huey|1=

{{WikiProject United States|class=FA|importance=mid|LA=yes|LA-importance=High|USgovernors=yes|USgovernors-importance=high}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|LA=yes|LA-importance=High|USgovernors=yes|USgovernors-importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=FA|politician-priority=high|politician-work-group=yes|listas=Long, Huey}}

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=high|politician-work-group=yes}}

{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=FA|importance=High|subject=person}}

{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=High|subject=person}}

{{WikiProject Socialism|class=FA|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Low}}

{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=FA}}

}}

}}

{{Round in circles|search=yes}}

{{Round in circles|search=yes}}

Line 52: Line 51:

|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}

|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 1

|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 4

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(60d)

|algo = old(60d)

Line 59: Line 58:

{{section sizes}}

{{section sizes}}

{{Annual readership}}

{{Annual readership}}


== Edit warring ==


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=1153988474&oldid=1153988123 1]


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=1153988123&oldid=1153986403 2]


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=1153986403&oldid=1153984999 3]


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=1153984999&oldid=1153984367 4]


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=1153984367&oldid=1153969938 5]


[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=1153969938&oldid=1153966185 6]


Pinging [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]. Toa has already been topic banned from post 1992 American politics. If they feel the need to display the same pattern of behavior in pre 1992 politics you may want to have a talk with them. Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 17:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(EDIT) I realize that 3RR has not been broken yet, this is more of a preventative measure. Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 17:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

:The discussion above, in which the other editor participated, strongly leaned towards this remaining, as have previous discussions. I’ve avoided violating policy here, but the editor in question - who has only a handful of edits exclusively to this page - is pretty clearly in the wrong here. Regardless, continuing to revert clearly isn’t going to resolve the issue in question. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 17:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


{{u|HueyLong1893}}, feel free to discuss your reasoning here. I know you’ve participated in at least one past discussion. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 18:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


:From your own article: Academics and historians have found difficulty categorizing Long and his ideology.[223][224] His platform has been compared to ideologies ranging from McCarthyism to European Fascism and Stalinism.[225] When asked about his own philosophy, Long simply replied: "Oh, hell, say that I'm sui generis and let it go at that."[21] Robert Penn Warren described him as a "remarkable set of contradictions".[199].

:So maybe it's not necessary to attribute left-wing populism to him at the beginning of the lines, if historians themselves argue about views, and Long used right-wing methods in politics.

:I propose to leave just the populist wing without specifying left or right populism.

:Also

:"Long's conservative streak was apparent during his crackdown on gambling and prostitution in the red light district in New Orleans after his breaking with Colonel Robert "Bow-Wow" Ewing who was a Long boss in the city. Ewing had ties to the gambling and prostitution industries in New Orleans and Long, coupled with his disdain for both of the industries, ordered state militia under Adjutant General of the national guard Raymond H. Fleming to "cut out the wide-open gambling" in the city" ( Williams (1981) [1969], p. 342.|)

:Long was a strident [[Isolationism|isolationist]] and [[American nationalism|political nationalist]] who opposed American intervention abroad and was a strong supporter of [[Tariff|tariffs]], with Long labelling himself a "tariff Democrat". Along with supporting tariffs, he advocated that the American government disassociate from European efforts to settle [[war debts]] and to grant independence to [[Philippines|the Philippines]]. Long argued that [[Standard Oil Company of New York|Standard Oil]] had backed rebellions across Latin America to install puppet governments that would be beholden to the company's interests. In 1934, Long claimed that Standard Oil was backing the Bolivian government [[Chaco War|to make war with]] Paraguay over the oil-rich northern [[Gran Chaco|Grand Chaco]] region after the latter had refused to grant favorable leasing terms to the company. ( [[Political views of Huey Long]] ) [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 15:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:Reading his books, and Gerald Smith's book, where he calls him a conservative. Long appears to be a right-wing populist rather than a leftist

:[https://thecrossandflag.com/smith_and_long.html#here "Share the Wealth. This was a catch phrase used by Huey Long to appeal to the great impoverished public, and that meant about 90 per cent of the people during the depression. His economic formula would make the present Republican Party look radical. At heart Huey Long was a Conservative"]

:Truth of the matter is that by the standards of the global history, there's virtually nothing that Long advocated-progressive taxation, free higher education, subsidies family, veterans' welfare, etc-that would be particularly bizarre for any respectable, conservative political establishment with modest emphasis on social stabilization to implement. Progressive taxation? Tory government of Robert Peel already set a precedent in the UK already in 1842. Free education and veterans' welfare? Already well-ploughed fields and practices by gasp, drastically radical, leftist regimes of both the French Third Republic and Bismarckian Germany during the belle epoque. Wealth Cap and wealth distribution? - such "leftist" figures offered to limit personal wealth like Bronislav Kaminsky, Kita Ikki, William Dudley Pelley and many other. None of those figures or polities are considered as particularly 'leftist' in their respective political contexts of the era.

:As for the wealth cap, already in Huey Long's lifetime, House Democrats Democrats (Wesley Lloyd, Washington, Jon Snyder, Pennsylvania) had proposed in 1933, before Long's famed Share Our Wealth radio address, a Congressional amendment of wealth cap up to $1 million in personal wealth. If this doesn't rebut your point on the account of both Representatives indeed having belonged to authentically 'left of center' side of political spectrum in the Depression-era US, in other conventionally paternalistic conservative societies elsewhere, wealth cap in broader, philosophical concept have long-preexisted in the form of sumptuary laws and other restrictions on private accumulation of wealth through frankly more arbitrary measures such as confiscations. [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


::Sources in the article, including Brinkley (1993), identify him as on the political left. Berlet & Lyons (2000), p. 126 quotes him aligning himself on the left, saying he votes with the administration when it is left and against when it is right. See also the Share Our Wealth section, and his left-wing opposition to the New Deal.

::You're making a ton of personal individual value statements about individual beliefs, but that doesn't really matter and your own personal views on Long don't matter, either. We've had [tps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huey_Long/Archive_1#%22Left%22 multiple] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huey_Long/Archive_1#Left-wing_populist previous discussions] on the matter; there's a broad agreement he's on the political left. You're the only one trying to force through something otherwise. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 15:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Academics and historians have found difficulty categorizing Long and his ideology.[223][224] His platform has been compared to ideologies ranging from McCarthyism to European Fascism and Stalinism.[225] When asked about his own philosophy, Long simply replied: "Oh, hell, say that I'm sui generis and let it go at that."[21] Robert Penn Warren described him as a "remarkable set of contradictions"

:::Calling him left-wing populist is you individual value statements, but that doesn't really matter and your own personal views on Long don't matter, either. [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 15:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::It's not a value statement. It's backed up by reliable sources and agreed upon by consensus. I would strongly advise you to revert to the status-quo, consensus version that has been agreed upon by editors for years. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::As a compromise, let's leave him just a populist without indicating whether he is left or right. For historians themselves have not come to this conclusion to the end.

:::::Before your intervention, for many years he was just a populist, the fact that a year ago you attributed to him a "left populist" does not make you the status quo. [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::That's not a compromise. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::This is just an adequate compromise, reinforced by the rest of the material on this article. I would understand if you were opposed to the fact that I called him a right-wing populist, but I suggest leaving him just a populist, given that academics have not definitively decided Long's views.

:::I remember, it from this article:

:::"Academics and historians have found difficulty categorizing Long and his ideology.[223][224] His platform has been compared to ideologies ranging from McCarthyism to European Fascism and Stalinism.[225] When asked about his own philosophy, Long simply replied: "Oh, hell, say that I'm sui generis and let it go at that."[21] Robert Penn Warren described him as a "remarkable set of contradictions""

:::Right now, instead of specifying a neutral definition of a populist, without a bias in both sides of a political spector, you are imposing your view on Long, which contradicts one of the paragraphs of the same article [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::You are just repeating the same irrelevant things over and over at this point. I would strongly advise you to revert to the consensus version and actually engage in productive discussion here. Why do you feel so strongly that you need to force a change that has been rejected numerous times before? '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 16:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Because you specifically made edits about the left populist, as can be seen from the editing history of this article. A lot of people have written before me about leaving him a populist, but it was you who decided to make him a left-wing populist according to your wish, which contradicts even the article itself and the opinion of the academic environment. And now you're also offering me to read articles about Long, where he is exposed as an evil populist in half of the articles, [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


:Here's some additional resources:

*[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/huey-long-was-donald-trumps-left-wing-counterpart/583933/ When Demagogic Populism Swings Left - The Atlantic]

*[https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/08/huey-long-was-wrong/ Huey Long Was Wrong - National Review]

*[https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746568840/huey-long-vs-the-media Huey Long Vs. The Media - NPR]

*[https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/our-views-fdrs-restraint-with-huey-long-is-a-valuable-lesson-for-politicians-today/article_42ed2c84-09ef-11e8-8442-c714423cfd93.html Our Views: FDR's restraint with Huey Long is a valuable lesson for politicians today The Advocate]

*[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-fdr-229893/ What Warren and Sanders Get Wrong About FDR - POLITICO]

:Long is squarely identified with the left - specifically, progressivism and left-wing populism. There's no real debate on the matter. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::You offer me links to articles from Internet sources, in half of which he is considered a bad character.

::Here's also some additional resources:

::[https://thecrossandflag.com/smith_and_long https://thecrossandflag.com/smith_and_long.html#here]

::https://amgreatness.com/2021/05/02/the-long-shot/ [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::…are you seriously citing “American Greatness”, a pro-Trump trash site, as a reliable source? '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 16:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::are you seriously citing "National Review", a neocon trash site, as a reliable source? [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::National Review is generally regarded as at least somewhat reliable. Not so for “American Greatness”. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 16:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::Actually, neither of these sources are reliable. Yikes. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 16:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Well, why refer to them. I would suggest that instead of messing with me and trying to ban me on Wikipedia, just agree to a compromise, and let the reader decide for himself what kind of populist Long was, based on the article he read. Your statement about Long's left-wing populism contradicts the same wikipedia article, where it says that Academics and historians have found difficulty categorizing Long and his ideology. [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::You literally cited a pro-Trump crock website and a literal white nationalist newsletter. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 16:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::You literally cited a pro-Neocon andcrock website and a literal Free-Market Fundamental newsletter [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::Free-Market Fundamentalist* [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::Do you not see any issue at all with presenting a website that condemns both Judaism and integration as a reliable source? '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 16:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::" literal white nationalist "

::::::::::But real "left-wing populist" Huey Long was literal pro-segregation

::::::::::"If Long's record on encouraging black voting is hardly sterling, one might argue that at least his economic program helped blacks. But that aid was marginal and unintentional. He provided no pensions or employment benefits to white or black Louisianians-outsiders sometimes attribute Louisiana's welfare net to Huey but the credit actually belongs to his brother Earl, governor in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, Huey opposed such programs and specifically argued that the money would be wasted on blacks. During the 1932 gubernatorial campaign he attacked a plan for old age pensions advocated by anti-Long candidate Dudley LeBlanc. He complained that LeBlanc's promise of $30 per month for those over 60 would cost $60,000,000. "And LeBlanc is going to pay pensions to negroes, too," Long said, "because don't you think he is going to overlook his lodge brothers. It will cost $20,000,000 a year to pay the negroes' pensions alone, and you white people will be working the year around to pay pensions to negroes."

::::::::::When two black ministers attempted to attend a meeting of clergy who favored sharing the wealth, they were turned away, told they were not invited. Blacks were permitted to attend rallies so long as they remained around the fringes of the crowd and did not mingle with whites. "

::::::::::Jeansonne, 1992, 273-275.

::::::::::Also:

::::::::::[Long] denied a recommendation to appoint a black controller of customs in New Orleans on the grounds that whites would have to call him "mister".

::::::::::Blacks were permitted to attend [Share Our Wealth] rallies so long as they remained around the fringes of the crowd and did not mingle with whites.

::::::::::[Long] told audiences that [...] arch-enemy Lee Thomas (mayor of Shreveport) accepted campaign contributions from blacks.

::::::::::He habitually used the term [N-word], but his printers changed it

::::::::::Long refused to refer the case for arbitration to a subcommittee which included women. "No bunch of damned skirts is going to decide anything affecting me," he said.

::::::::::One of Long's bodyguards testified that Long had become an honorary member of the Alexandria Klan in 1924. Furthermore, Long accepted a $30,000 contribution from Swords Lee, a relative who was a high Klan official, for his 1928 campaign.

::::::::::"You can quote me as saying I'll vote 100 per cent against the Costigan-Wagner anti-lynching bill that's brought up there in Washington," he said. "We just lynch an occasional [N-word]. No federal anti-lynching bill would help that."

::::::::::He provided no pensions or employment benefits to white or black Louisianans- outsiders sometimes attribute Louisiana's welfare net to Huey but the credit actually belongs to his brother Earl, governor in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, Huey opposed such programs and specifically argued that the money would be wasted on blacks.

::::::::::Blacks were the lowest priority in state hospitals, were underpaid on state jobs, their unionization discouraged, and were sentenced to unduly long prison terms.

::::::::::During the 1932 gubernatorial campaign he attacked a plan for old age pensions advocated by anti-Long candidate Dudley LeBlanc. He complained that LeBlanc's promise of $30 per month for those over 60 would cost $60,000,000. "And LeBlanc is going to pay pensions to negroes, too," Long said, "because don't you think he is going to overlook his lodge brothers. It will cost $20,000,000 a year to pay the negroes' pensions alone, and you white people will be working the year around to pay pensions to negroes." There was nothing in the program Long discussed in either his autobiography or his manifesto, My First Days in the White House, for blacks. He specifically denied to Roy Wilkins that he planned any special economic or political program for blacks.

::::::::::Source: Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association Vol. 33, No. 3 [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::Yes, especially when this article was written as a response to the article America Gretness, and in this article from NR Long they specifically want to expose a bad "ultra-left populist crock". In general, it's funny how a person of left-wing views refers to market fundomentalists [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Also, from T Harry Williams book, page 800

:::::::"Huey, an ardent nationalist on the rare occasions that he thought about foreign policy, fully shared their views. But in joining their attack on the treaty he was motivated primarily by his detestation of Roosevelt." [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 16:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::An interesting progressive turned out to be Huey Long. His associates are ardent anti-communists, those people who were ranked among the American far-right, who, like Long himself, advocate isolationism and the principle of "America first." Long himself referred not to the writings of left-wing economists, but to the Bible. I don't think it's worth talking about Long's struggle with prostitution. In addition, Long himself was an anti-communist. "We have neither communists nor socialists in Louisiana. Huey Pierce Long is the greatest enemy that Communists and Socialists have to deal with." - Huey Long. Long himself actively debated with socialists such as Norman Thomas. Long's ideological landmarks were the founding fathers of America, Andrew Jackson and William Bryan. [[Special:Contributions/77.222.107.254|77.222.107.254]] ([[User talk:77.222.107.254|talk]]) 16:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


I've opened up a [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editing at Huey Long|discussion at AN/I about this]]. Tagging {{u|Generalrelative}} since they just responded here. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


:Thanks, Toa. I'm definitely not endorsing HueyLong1893's behavior here. But it does seem to me that scholars typically eschew calling Long a leftist, which means that we should too (while also including the quotes where he identifies that way, ''and'' the ones where he contradicts that characterization). [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::I'd again recommend reading the sources I've showed. Scholars are ''not'' shy about identifying him on the left; this isn't a case like with [[Charles Coughlin]] where there is some genuine debate (and even on his end, most align him with the left, although this tends to be underscored in modern times because he focused so heavily on gross, egregious anti-Semitism). This is has been extensively discussed, really. If there were actual academic sources presented, that's one thing, but there's no shortage that identify him as aligning with the political left - even in his own words. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 17:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Just as an example - take, for example, source 225. The article suggests that academics "have found difficulty categorizing Long and his ideology"; however, the source doesn't support this. Instead, it says they've had difficulty examining the [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4234200 "impact of his career"]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=xTuq2SzUMnIC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=%22Oh,+hell,+say+that+I’m+sui+generis+and+let+it+go+at+that%22&source=bl&ots=BNSzfVU-wl&sig=ACfU3U0UOJFCeqKmzVcVHCZ_s5mg9z6p9g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEmomiuon_AhU6lmoFHeX7DW0Q6AF6BAg_EAM#v=onepage&q=%22Oh%2C%20hell%2C%20say%20that%20I’m%20sui%20generis%20and%20let%20it%20go%20at%20that%22&f=false The "Sui generis" quote isn't about his political ''philosophy'' but his political ''personality''.] '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 17:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::Long never call himself leftist. Also his closer supporter Gerald L K Smith call him as conservative, not left wing populist [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 17:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Yes he did. It's quoted in the article. But he said a lot of mutually contradictory things, and people at the time placed him all over the ideological map. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::In any case, my position is: let's just leave Long as a populist, without a bias to the left wing or the right. As it was before the Toa editorial board, in 21 and before that [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 17:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::Gerald Smith was a close associate of Huey Long and it was he who headed the "Share Our Wealth" society after Long's death. In addition, Long himself said that the purpose of his plan is to strengthen traditions. Huey Long was a paternalistic conservative and populist nationalist like Juan Peron or Getulio Vargas. He is neither right nor left. [[Special:Contributions/77.222.107.254|77.222.107.254]] ([[User talk:77.222.107.254|talk]]) 17:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::I really don't think you're correct here, Toa. See my latest comment in the above section. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::I think [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] makes an equal point. BTW I was not able to find an RfC for consensus that Long was a left wing populist either, so the argument in that regard is dubious. There was a discussion that seemed to die out, but not much else. I suggest an actual RfC if Toa insists on committing Long to only one aspect of the political spectrum. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 17:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::My position is let's just leave Huey Long as a populist in article, without a bias to the left wing or the right. [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 17:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:An RfC is not the only way to establish consensus; however, an RfC in this case seems like a reasonable solution to me, {{u|Darknipples}}. If you're willing to start one, that would presumably resolve the issue. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 18:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::In that case I think we must agree on which reliable sources are best to be used in the argument, both for and against. I'm not going to take sides or vote, and I don't have any closing experience, so I suggest a more experienced editor or admin for that. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 18:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Well, I've compiled a list. I'll post below. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::Any thoughts on including editors at [[Political views of Huey Long]] et al? [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 18:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::I don't hold that page in high regard at all, but sure? '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::An RfC question should be simple and short. It should not include sources. Those can be marshaled by those arguing for and against. I would suggest as a question: {{tq|Should Long be described as "left-wing" in the article lead?}} [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::More specifically, as a "left-wing populist". I would not support labeling him strictly as left-wing. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 18:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Sounds good to me. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


===A slew of reliable sources===

*[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/huey-long-was-donald-trumps-left-wing-counterpart/583933/ When Demagogic Populism Swings Left - The Atlantic "Long’s brief political career provides a mirrored vision of Trump’s demagogic populism—a glimpse of what could happen if a left-wing politician channeled a similar message and disregard for political mores."]

*[https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746568840/huey-long-vs-the-media Huey Long Vs. The Media - NPR "He combined progressive economic ideas with an autocratic streak, earning him thousands of adoring fans and fearful enemies."]

*[https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/our-views-fdrs-restraint-with-huey-long-is-a-valuable-lesson-for-politicians-today/article_42ed2c84-09ef-11e8-8442-c714423cfd93.html Our Views: FDR's restraint with Huey Long is a valuable lesson for politicians today - The Advocate "When Roosevelt was elected president in 1932, critics accused him of being too liberal. But Long, the legendary governor who had been elected to the U.S. Senate, didn’t think Roosevelt was progressive enough."]

*[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/01/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-fdr-229893/ What Warren and Sanders Get Wrong About FDR - POLITICO "The antitrust concession horrified the progressive populists of the day. “The Democratic Party dies tonight,” thundered Senator Huey Long"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Right_Wing_Populism_in_America/pDtRDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22huey+long%22+%2B+%22left-wing%22&pg=PA127&printsec=frontcover Guilford Publications, Right-Wing Populism in America "Long positioned himself as a left-wing critic of a vaccinating New Deal"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kingfish/_0CKVuAldzEC?hl=en&gbpv=0 Random House Publishing Group, Kingfish, "According to Huey, either he or another third-party candidate would take enough left-wing votes from Roosevelt"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Demagogue_s_Playbook/dVC9DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22huey+long%22+%2B+%22left-wing%22&pg=PT67&printsec=frontcover The Demagogue's Playbook: The Battle for American Democracy from the Founders to Trump, Eric A. Posner "The left-wing version would be represented by Huey Long"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Populism_Democracy_and_the_Humanities/S3BgEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22huey%20long%22%20 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Populism, Democracy, and the Humanities Interdisciplinary Explorations and Critical Enquiries p.193 "Lewis's model for Buzz Windrip was obviously Huey Long, an authoritarian demagogue to be sure, but a decided leftist populist politician"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Liberalism_and_Leadership/mGKzDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22huey%20long%22 p.66 University of Michigan Press, Liberalism and Leadership: The Irony of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr."The first category consists of leftist politicians with a populist streak, including Huey Long"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Leadership_Populism_and_Resistance/DnHaDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22huey%20long%22 Edward Elgar Publishing, Leadership, Populism, and Resistance "Governor Franklin Roosevelt worried about a dangerous populist left under the influence of Huey Long"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Evolutionary_Theory_in_the_Social_Scienc/DJquyEyd0AIC?hl=en&gbpv=0 Routledge, Evolutionary Theory in the Social Sciences "As Huey Long's left-wing response to the New Deal demonstrates"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Quest_for_the_Presidency/pGhgEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22huey+long%22+%2B+%22left-wing%22&pg=PT200&printsec=frontcover University of Nebraska Press Quest for the Presidency: The Storied and Surprising History of Presidential Campaigns in America "There was also a threat from left-wing autocrats, notably Huey Long"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Nature_at_War/BFjPDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22huey+long%22+%2B+%22left-wing%22&pg=PA206&printsec=frontcover Cambridge University Press, Nature at War American Environments and World War II "Left-wing radicals like Huey Long of Louisiana"]

*[https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Unemployment/nPzgDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22huey+long%22+%2B+%22left-wing%22&pg=PT94&printsec=frontcover University of Illinois Press, American Unemployment: Past, Present, and Future "In 1934 left-wing radicalism was surging, as evidenced by Huey Long's "Share the Wealth" movement"]


Just some sources I've found from maybe 30 minutes of research. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


:Also reliable sources

:[https://thecrossandflag.com/smith_and_long.html#here Gerald L.K. Smith closer Huey supporter about Huey views] Gerald L K Smith called Huey as Conservative [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 19:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::The Cross and Flag is not a reliable source. It's a white nationalist website. Please stop posting it. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 19:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

:::And? Even despite the views, Smith was a close supporter of Long. We can't ignore him because of his views [[User:HueyLong1893|HueyLong1893]] ([[User talk:HueyLong1893|talk]]) 19:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

::::Reliable sources only please, HueyLong1893. Also, Toa, would it be possible to try to narrow it down? Does '''top 3 RS for each side''' sound OK with everyone?...[[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 02:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Respectfully, I see no reason to limit the sources to three each, when there are dozens in favor and very few contrary. When it’s such a clear preponderance of evidence, reducing the number of sources total provides a clear benefit to the minority opinion. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 02:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

::::[[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] and Toa...You seem to agree sources are uneccessary and just keeping it to a simplistic question is preferable. The issue seems to be that Toa wants "left-wing populist" in the lead while Huey and GR prefer "populist". The question can be posed in various ways but to address the specific issues here it would seem best to offer multiple choice options, unless anyone has objections to that. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 03:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Just as a note, Huey has been indefinitely blocked. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 03:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::It would be fine to phrase the RfC question as: {{talkquote|Should the lead describe Long as 1) "a left-wing populist", 2) simply "a populist", or 3) neither?}} [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 04:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::That said, if I'm the only one left who objects to "left-wing", I'm happy to let it go. I weighed in in the interest of putting an end to the edit warring, and that's now been obviated. I also see that BMK restored the phrase. Not interested enough in this controversy to invest a bunch more time into it. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 04:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

:Apologies for intruding if I am, but saw this discussion and thought I'd drop a couple more book citations:

:*''"[Long] shouted that to help the suffering masses the New Deal must turn to the left... Roosevelt responded to what he thought was a dangerous possibility - if the New Deal failed to solve the problems of capitalism, the restless factions of the American left might erupt into some kind of revolution under Long's leadership"'' Huey Long by T Harry Williams, p. 7-8

:*''"Huey Long's conquest of Louisiana came from what was, in American terms, a clearly radical and left-wing tradition."'' The Age of Extremes by Eric Hobsbawm, p. 133

:*''"The popularity of Huey Long's calls for radical redistribution of wealth and income was the most striking example of the widespread thunder on the left in the mid-1930s."'' The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941 by Robert S. McElvaine, 243

:The great majority of academics and historians put Long on the (albeit the American populist and non-socialist) political and economic left. I'd agree with Toa that 3 RS would give an unfair advantage to the minority opinion. [[User:SDYB-WNRTC|SDYB-WNRTC]] ([[User talk:SDYB-WNRTC|talk]]) 04:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

::Sources will not be included in the RfC question (see Generalrelative's comments), they will be saved for discussion as long as no one objects. Since Huey is no longer involved, if Toa concurs, we may move forward. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 04:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

===Issue tabled===

(Flips table) Just kidding, it seems no one is left to challenge the "left-wing populist" insertion, or re-insertion, into the lead, as the original complainant editor is currently indef and the secondary has yielded in the interest of time [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHuey_Long&diff=1156492633&oldid=1156492166]. Toa, it may be wise to proceed with the RfC as to avoid having to revisit this issue again, but I'll leave it to you. Thank you for your patience. Cheers. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 04:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


:Per [[WP:RFCBEFORE]]: {{talkquote|RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC.}} So no, an RfC should not be started if there is no ongoing dispute. Cheers y'all, [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 04:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

::Agreed. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 05:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

::Point taken, I'm just dealing with a bit of talk-page whiplash at the moment...[[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 05:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Understood. Thanks for your work, DN. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 05:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)



== "Fascistic" ==

== "Fascistic" ==

Line 268: Line 116:

*:::{{u|Darknipples}}, {{u|Aquabluetesla}} has a tendency to edit their comments after the fact. This is probably where the confusion has come from. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 23:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

*:::{{u|Darknipples}}, {{u|Aquabluetesla}} has a tendency to edit their comments after the fact. This is probably where the confusion has come from. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 23:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

*::::Apparently neither admin are responding, which I find odd and disappointing. I suppose they have better things to do, and if that is the case I won't bother continuing to argue here as long as other editors here are allowed to change my edits however they see fit, but I trust HAL has this in hand. One last cite I would add, before I excuse myself from this circus. It seems [[Katherine Anne Porter]] once {{tq|called him “the worst sort of fascist demagogue.”}} according to [[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/06/12/the-big-sleazy this piece]] from [[The New Yorker]] magazine written in 2006, which may already be in the article, it may not, either way, best of luck. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 20:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

*::::Apparently neither admin are responding, which I find odd and disappointing. I suppose they have better things to do, and if that is the case I won't bother continuing to argue here as long as other editors here are allowed to change my edits however they see fit, but I trust HAL has this in hand. One last cite I would add, before I excuse myself from this circus. It seems [[Katherine Anne Porter]] once {{tq|called him “the worst sort of fascist demagogue.”}} according to [[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/06/12/the-big-sleazy this piece]] from [[The New Yorker]] magazine written in 2006, which may already be in the article, it may not, either way, best of luck. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 20:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


== Removal of source under Historical reputation section ==


With regard to this edit...[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=1156560039&oldid=1156513558] {{tq|The full quote here is "My guess is that he was a remarkable set of contradictions, still baffling to biographers"; I don't think this is a confident enough quote to use him as a source. Boldly removing; feel free to revert or discuss if need be.}}


:::''Robert Penn Warren described him as a "remarkable set of contradictions".<ref name="warrennyt">{{cite news|last=Warren|first=Robert Penn|author-link=Robert Penn Warren|date=May 31, 1981|title=In the Time of 'All the King's Men'|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/31/books/in-the-time-of-all-the-king-s-men.html|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=September 4, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200108173512/https://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/31/books/in-the-time-of-all-the-king-s-men.html|archive-date=January 8, 2020|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref>''


I'm not sure what you mean by "confident enough quote". This is a well sourced citation that backs up what is said in the right context. How does "lack of confidence" constitute removal of seemingly [[WP:DUE]] RS, written by [[Robert Penn Warren]], which by the way won him a Pulitzer Prize for writing on this exact topic? Why would we remove this? [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

:The author entirely prefaces it as a "guess" about what Long's personality was, but the article chopped out that part of the quote. Guesses aren't actually useful and don't add much here. This quote doesn't offer anything at all, and that's before the fact was misleadingly chopped up; there's no actual benefit to including it, really. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 19:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

::It's not clear that what you are claiming isn't what the author intended. This was a retrospective piece written in 1981 by a highly respected writer. Why would he include it if he felt it was unimportant or should be dismissed? That seems quite unlikely and fairly presumptuous. To say it doesn't offer anything because the author wrote "I guess" seems a bit of a literal interpretation that lacks any nuance. IMO we can keep the quote from NYT by Warren, but you may include the whole quote (including the "I guess") since you feel it seems disingenuous without it. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 01:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

:::The whole quote is somewhat intriguing:

<blockquote>My guess is that he was a remarkable set of contradictions, still baffling to biographers. But I had a great interest in what Huey did in his world, and a greater interest in Huey as a focus of myth. Without this gift for attracting myth he would not have been the power he was, for good and evil. And this gift was fused, indissolubly, with his dramatic sense, with his varying roles and perhaps, ultimately, with the atmosphere of violence which he generated.</blockquote>

:::If the whole quote were included - not just the brief focus on his personality - I'd support inclusion. It does give some insight onto the "populist hero vs. despotic authoritarian" mythology. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 17:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

::::I would support that. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::I'm fine with using the whole quote considering the source. If [[User:Aquabluetesla|Aquabluetesla]] doesn't have any objections, I'm happy to do the legwork. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 17:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


::::::Including the original quote was misleading as the full quote seems to me to be an attempt at trying to understand Huey Long as it includes the word ''guess''. It doesn’t seem to be a fully confident statement. I don't think the quote originator's status as a winner of an award (although notably prestigious) necessarily justifies including it either. [[User:Aquabluetesla|<i style="color:lightblue; font-family: Helvetica;">Aquablue</i>]][[User talk:Aquabluetesla|<i style="color: yellow; font-family: Helvetica;">tesla</i>]] 01:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::This brings up an interesting question. Should this article only be limited to political aspects? IMO, the obvious answer is no. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 05:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::What exactly is the point of this article in your view? While I empathize with anyone's inability to grasp a particular purpose on one thing or another, I typically try to ensure I am not using an [[Argument from incredulity]], especially when it comes to quality sources such as this. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 05:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


:::::::I'll put it this way, the phrase "I guess" can be interpreted in different ways. I challenge you to provide evidence that it's use here can only be interpreted as "I don't know" vs. [https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/i-guess "I think so"]. Also, keep in mind that everyone else here seems to agree this content bares some [[WP:WEIGHT]]...[[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 18:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::If there's no consensus for adding the quote in whole, I would like to keep the original truncated quote. I believe it improves the article and Warren's perspective is relevant due to his close relationship with Long. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] 20:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::I strongly oppose re-adding the short, misleading, clipped quote that provides essentially no value beyond a guess. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 22:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::Aqua has yet to provide solid reasoning for exclusion, but I think Toa is trying to be reasonable in an effort to reach consensus. I still find the arguments that "it takes up too much space" or "isn't ''confident'' enough" to be without merit, considering the source. At the very least, I think we should include the "i guess" portion, and let readers use the citation if they need further clarification. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 01:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


I propose a shortened version, as Aqua requested, that includes the preface that Toa requested. If HAL and [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] agree that it is acceptable I will add it in per [[WP:CONACHIEVE]].

<blockquote>My guess is that he was a remarkable set of contradictions, still baffling to biographers. But I had a great interest in what Huey did in his world, and a greater interest in Huey as a focus of myth. Without this gift for attracting myth he would not have been the power he was, for good and evil.</blockquote>

[[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 07:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


:This version is much more acceptable than how it was before its removal. I am okay with the entire quote being used in the article. I've edited my previous statements regarding this discussion.

[[User:Aquabluetesla|<i style="color:lightblue; font-family: Helvetica;">Aquablue</i>]][[User talk:Aquabluetesla|<i style="color: yellow; font-family: Helvetica;">tesla</i>]] 16:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


:I personally would prefer the whole quote be used - the bit at the very end about the culture of violence that Long was surrounded with is ''really'' important. His legacy isn't just as a despot, but someone who was assassinated - he used force to impose his will, and was killed by force in the end. I think that sort of encapsulates all of the feelings the writer was trying to express. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 16:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

::I understand your feelings here, and I do not see any issue with using the whole quote. Aqua is the only standout so far, the majority, so far, is to include the whole the quote. [[User:Darknipples|DN]] ([[User talk:Darknipples|talk]]) 17:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

:::I am okay with the inclusion of the full quote. [[User:Aquabluetesla|<i style="color:lightblue; font-family: Helvetica;">Aquablue</i>]][[User talk:Aquabluetesla|<i style="color: yellow; font-family: Helvetica;">tesla</i>]] 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


{{ref list}}



== Possible weasel wording added to the lead, unsupported context ==

== Possible weasel wording added to the lead, unsupported context ==

Line 322: Line 133:


:Please discuss content, not other editors. There is a change of topic from Senator to Presidential campaign. That requires a paragraph break per [[WP:PARAGRAPH]]. [[WP:LEAD]]'s "four paragraphs" is a rule-of-thumb, not a hard limit. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 13:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:Please discuss content, not other editors. There is a change of topic from Senator to Presidential campaign. That requires a paragraph break per [[WP:PARAGRAPH]]. [[WP:LEAD]]'s "four paragraphs" is a rule-of-thumb, not a hard limit. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 13:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

::As it stands, the lead is broken down into four paragraphs: the first is a simple overview, the second covers his early life and lower state positions, the third covers his tenure as governor, and the fourth covers his career in the federal government. Regardless, you have no consensus for this massive change to an FA. Please revert it and gain consensus, or I will bring you to ANI. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


:::'''Massive change'''??? I inserted a single line break. Also, you've now reverted my edit 3 times, while I've only reverted you 2 times. I'd be careful slinging around the term "edit-warring" if I were you. Technically, it only applies to editors who make more than 3 reverts on the same article in 24 hours. We don't go around posting warnings on user talk pages until an editor has make 3 reverts. Doing it after a single revert as you did a couple days ago is bullying. FA is not some kind of "protected status". And you won't know what the [[WP:CONSENSUS]] actually is until this discussion is joined by other editors and comes to a conclusion. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 13:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

::::You've reverted me three times and have not followed [[WP:BRD]]. This change has been reverted by two editors, although I am not sure if {{u|Aquabluetesla}} has strong feelings on the topic. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:::::No, I have not reverted you three times. My first edit added a paragraph break. It was not a revert of anything. I reverted once on the 1st, and once today. That's it. The other editor made the same edit, and reverted themselves. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 13:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

::::::Wrong: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=prev&oldid=1168272059 Bold edit], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=prev&oldid=1168276287 Revert 1],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=prev&oldid=1168549596 Revert 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huey_Long&diff=prev&oldid=1168550880 Revert 3]. It's pretty clear cut. Please revert yourself back to the [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. ~ [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''HAL'''</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px; border:1px solid red;">'''333'''</span>]] 13:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I guess now you're just trying to prove you are the bigger edit warrior. Even if you are correct about my 3 reverts, you are now at 4. I won't revert you again ''today'', but I'd be careful about [[WP:BOOMARANG]] at ANI, if I were you. [[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] ([[User talk:Skyerise|talk]]) 13:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

::::::::I also oppose adding a fifth paragraph. Please stop it. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i>]] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|<i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>]]''' 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


== Carl Weiss ==


In the main section of the article (before “Early Life”), the article states “Long was assassinated by Carl Weiss”. Should consider rephrasing this in light of contrary evidence such as https://circulatingnow.nlm.nih.gov/2018/09/11/letters-shed-light-on-huey-longs-murder-mystery/ [[User:DeniseLP|DeniseLP]] ([[User talk:DeniseLP|talk]]) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks very much for the source, which is excellent and we'll be including it. By my reading, as of this datestamp this article gives due weight to presented evidence that Carl Weiss did not fire a fatal shot, as does the article on the assassination itself (which has a long subsection on the theory). By my reading, this interpretation of the evidence is still considered a minority view among biographies used for sourcing of this article. I'd be glad to hear discussion on the subject. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 16:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

::the source is Very Poor. the sited source states: "Ochsner was not present in the Capitol that night but in his letters he told DeBakey..." ie he's giving us hearsay--he heard it from mystery person XYZ and we have zero evidence on the credibility of XYZ (did XYZ see it himself or did XYZ hear it from ABC who heard it from DEF....) credibility of fourth hand hearsay = near zero. Ochsner goes on to speculate about politics saying he relies on "dope" (ie rumor) I recommend leaving it out. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 19:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


== Mention of Huey Long, as he is in Kaiserreich and Kaiserredux ==


Kaiserreich, and Kaiserredux, are two Hearts of Iron IV mods in which, when the Second American Civil War breaks out, he is the leader of the nation, The American Union State. This is significant, in that it is common knowledge within the community. But for some reason, when I put this down in text, it was reverted, with no further explanation. Until I have received comment, or a meaning as to why it has been removed, I am going to unrevert. [[User:Kingofmapps|Kingofmapps]] ([[User talk:Kingofmapps|talk]]) 19:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


:@[[User:Mattmauler|Mattmauler]]

:Upon further inspection, it seems it was you perpetrated the revert.

:'Not a noteworthy portrayal,' is incredibly debatable. I would say a good faction of those who follow the principles of Long today are inspired because of said portrayal (not necessarily a good thing, but a thing), and it has become a meme, and well-known thing in the community. While it may not be the knowledge of the average Joe, it is notable. [[User:Kingofmapps|Kingofmapps]] ([[User talk:Kingofmapps|talk]]) 19:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

::Wargamer is a reliable sourcd so I'll leave this partly in - but you'll need an article with more than a single mention have the "often" claim. I'll tidy the language up. [[User:Carlp941|Carlp941]] ([[User talk:Carlp941|talk]]) 15:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:I agree, it's also mentioned in the article for his portrayals in culture [[User:V. L. Mastikosa|V. L. Mastikosa]] ([[User talk:V. L. Mastikosa|talk]]) 04:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for bringing this to the talkpage. My intention with the initial revert and also the one I just performed is to limit the media section to important portrayals so that it does not become an exhaustive list of just ''mentions'' or ''appearances'' in pop culture. That kind of trivia can easily get out of control. The article does not discuss Long's portrayal in the game as significant imo (see my edit summary - he's barely in the article); rather, it focuses on the mod as being special/popular. I have reverted again because I also saw another user remove this info recently (i.e., in agreement with me), so I believe it should stay with the stable version while we discuss this.--[[User:MattMauler|MattMauler]] ([[User talk:MattMauler|talk]]) 01:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

::Yeah I gotta with ya here, Wargamer is a reliable source, but needs more detail specifically about Long's portrayal to merit inclusion. Happy to leave it out for now. [[User:Carlp941|Carlp941]] ([[User talk:Carlp941|talk]]) 20:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


Latest revision as of 20:08, 15 June 2024

Featured articleHuey Long is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2021.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2020Good article nomineeListed
November 10, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
January 7, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 29, 2021Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
April 18, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted

Did You KnowAfact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 3, 2020.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that President Franklin D. Roosevelt regarded Senator Huey Long of Louisiana as "one of the two most dangerous men in America"?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 8, 2013, September 8, 2015, and September 8, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

"Fascistic"[edit]

Since this seems to be a point of contention - is there any wording here that might please everyone? I am find with referring to him as "fascistic" because it's clearly in a somewhat rhetorical sense, rather than an actual political platform of his. But would some alternative wording - like, say, "authoritarian", "despotic", or "dictatorial" - get the same point across? I think there's a way to get his leadership and governing style across that could satisfy most people. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find “fascistic” problematical, as historians who've analyzed calling Long a fascist (including Williams, p. 15-16, and Brinkley, p. 23) have ultimately rejected labeling him as such. “Dictatorial” seems to get the intended meaning across without promoting unnecessary confusion. SDYB-WNRTC (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Toa, I don't see the description "dictatorial" used in sources, as opposed to "fascistic". As far as the comment above, this doesn't necessarily eliminate confusion for everyone, and may have the opposite effect. Unless most sources say dictatorial etc...we should adhere to WP:RS. Please self-revert. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses "dictator" or "dictatorship" 7 times compared to only 3 for fascism or fascist. Toa Nidhiki05 18:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to go too far off topic, but clearly most uninvolved editors such as myself wouldn't bother to look through every single source in the article to count each one, so why feign indifference only to move the goal post? Your edit summary reads ("Per talk; feel free to revert if necessary"). If you don't wish it to be reverted why would you say that, or was it only directed at certain editors other than myself? DN (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t feign indifference. I made the edit to throw out an idea and spur discussion, which had appeared to. I don’t actually care much whether it calls him fascistic or not, I’d just prefer some kind of consensus to point to when this inevitably comes up again. Toa Nidhiki05 00:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Have a peaceful evening. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To help clarify, I was mainly looking at the lead, and I did not see use of the term "dictatorial" in it. I still don't see it until later in the body, in the Louisiana Governorship section 1928-1932, which only gives a quote, which I didn't take as a de-facto academic consensus "Referencing Long's contributions to Louisiana, Robert Penn Warren, a professor at LSU during Long's term as governor, stated: "Dictators, always give something for what they get.." (edit:see my reply to HAL...DN (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)) Cheers...DN (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see it, at the bottom of the third paragraph "His opponents argued his policies and methods were unconstitutional and dictatorial." Welp, I think HAL333 is doing much better without us XD. DN (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a broad consensus that Huey Long was indeed a left-wing populist. Many more historians designate him as such than as "right-wing" or "fascist". The term "fascistic" is problematic and denotes a right-wing or negative tone. Including it in the lead is against WP:NPOV guidelines. This is quite clear to most individuals. Other than the user who has used a white nationalist website as a source for their personal opinions regarding Long, those who are arguing for this term to be included have yet to explain their misguided rationale. I'm with Toa Nidhiki05 and several others on this one. Aquabluetesla 20:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it violates NPOV to say that critics called him a fascist. It's not in Wikipedia's voice. ~ HAL333 21:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say you are with TOA and "several others". Who, specifically, are you referring to in those terms, and why should anyone care? DN (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check the edit history of the article, I will not be explaining this in layman's terms for you. Dictatorial is much more accurate to be listed in the lead. "Fascistic" is significantly misleading. Many more would say he’s "dictatorial" than "fascistic". Far fewer would say he was "fascistic". Will change to reflect consensus of majority. The word "dictatorial" being restated later in the lead is not a viable reason for the term "fascistic" to be used. Aquabluetesla 21:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, since you side-stepped my question, I will ponder a guess that your plan seems to be, to ping ALL the involved editors in this discussion and hold an RfC, or dispute resolution, or something to that effect? Are you sure other editors won't see that as a waste of time?DN (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquabluetesla – Do you have sources to support that? The view that Long was "fascist" is not a minor or fringe view:

Here's a solid article on Long and fascism parallels. According to George Sokolsky, Long even said:『I'm Mussolini and Hitler rolled into one. Mussolini [force-fed dissidents] castor oil; I’ll give them tabasco, and then they’ll like Louisiana.』It's a major aspect of Long's life and legacy. Interestingly, the State of Louisiana describes Long in a very similar sentence as we do: "A fascist dictator or latter day 'Robin Hood', he remains in political lore the one and only 'Kingfish'." That's from Louisiana itself - a government website. ~ HAL333 21:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, as it says on the top of the talk page, "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting." I will not be providing any more sources, for there are an abundant amount of sources on this talk page regarding this fact. Hearsay from prominent and notable individuals is not a reason for it to be reflected as "fascistic". That is not from the actual Louisianian government, rather, it is a personal website of the State's Republican secretary of state and is partisan. Those quotes are not adequate rationale for the article’s present state as of your revert. Ignorance as to WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL specifically because there is no viable proof Long ever self-identified as a fascist and maybe the only reliable source that designates him as this, is one on JSTOR, doesn't make it meet the guidelines. Aquabluetesla 22:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic is hearsay? Academic journals are hearsay? And I've looked in the archives, and there is no presentation of sources that states that Long has been called "dictatorial" more often than "fascistic". If you can provide sources, I'm all ears. ~ HAL333 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one that states "accusation[s]"? Try dictator. The word should be changed to "authoritarian", "despotic", or "dictatorial". Aquabluetesla 01:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with HAL on this. WE can RfC or take it to dispute resolution. There's no consensus for change so, we should stick with it's original form for now. DN (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking this to dispute or RfC seems like a waste to me. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus needed for "fascistic"[edit]

[1] Aqua keeps ignoring this portion in the lead ("Please do not remove "facistic demagogue": discuss it on the talk page.-->) and changing a longstanding edit without trying to gain consensus. DN (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's abundantly clear the inclusion is controversial, but it's also WP:STATUSQUO and has been in the lead on and off for a long time now. Barring some sort of consensus to remove, it should stay. Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this "longstanding" is not accurate in this case, as it has been changed numerous times, as is clearly evident in the edit history of the article. WP:STATUSQUO is an unofficial essay and is against the official guidelines/policies ofWP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL. I personally have an essay of WP:DGAF regarding this prior stated reason. Aquabluetesla17:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has always been reverted back as well. If a solid case is made to change it I am all ears, but I'm not the only one that doesn't see why it's use is improper or unsupported. DN (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is important to note, and clear to me, who may be doing most of the reverting as well. An unrefuted case has been made and the edit is not unsupported or improper. It is okay with me if someone switches the words around with "authoritarian", "despotic", or "dictatorial", but "fascistic" is inaccurate in this case. Aquabluetesla 17:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. While I don't think he ever self-identified as a fascist (btw who would?), there is sufficient RS IMO that shows his critics often used that term to describe him. If you prefer we use "his critics referred to him as" as a qualifier, I might not object to it. DN (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is inaccurate, "his critics referred to him as" would be misleading as not very many regard him as a "fascist". Why do a few notable people's opinion regarding Long need to be given WP:UNDUE weight on his article? This is not what is done for former presidents. He was definitely a left-wing populist with some authoritarian tendencies, not at all a "fascist". Aquabluetesla 17:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you admit that there is RS to support it, but "not enough" in your opinion. That is where we are. If you can convince the others to make the change I might choose in favor of consensus, but for now please observe WP:STATUSQUO. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes written and attributed to someone without proof are not RS. The only RS calling him a "fascist" is the one JSTOR article as I've previously stated. Essays are unofficial. Aquabluetesla 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STOP EDIT WARRING...please...DN (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been in the lead since at least January of 2021 but you don't consider that as "longstanding" in your opinion? DN (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 has already refuted your opinions about the cited sources, it honestly seems like you just don't care and will continue to edit war no matter what. DN (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, indeed, it is not a "longstandingedit". It has been removed several times, it's not like it has remained on the article for that long without being removed. See the edit history. No, he did not refute that the guidelines/policies are official. If changing the title "is a no-no", I am unaware of whatever you’re referring to. That title was not written with neutrality in mind. What does "Cheers" mean in your context? I personally don't use that word, possibly due to being an American (excluding Belize). Aquabluetesla 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing section titles (especially other people's edits DN (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)) like you did here is a no-no AFAIK. Pinging admin Courcelles...DN (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible weasel wording added to the lead, unsupported context[edit]

This edit in the lead may be problematic with use of the term "allegedly", and the phrase "some have speculated to be suspicious" may not have RS support in the body. There also doesn't seem to be any consensus for these changes, not to mention the edit summary is nonsensical. DN (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the ability to write whatever I desire to write in the edit summary. Why is that worth mentioning? Anyways, this is out of date now. Your revert of "Some historians", not "all" as you stated, "doesn't seem to [have a] consensus for [the change]". I have changed the original title of this section because it may have been against WP:NPA. Aquabluetesla 08:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:ACCUSED does not justify the change and to claim so is misleading. Even though Weiss was never brought to trial, official investigations concluded that he was the sole culprit. The case is similar to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy; the article describes Oswald in wikivoice as the killer without hedging it. (Those conspiracies, however, are not a fringe view and are much more notable of course.) Moreover, the featured article reviewers did not find any issues with this aspect of the article. I should emphasize that I'm not saying that featured articles are set-in-stone and should never change, but I think it would be best if we discussed any more bold changes here for the sake of lowering tensions. ~ HAL333 15:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be inclined towards the status quo. Conspiracy theories are inherently a touchy subject, and muddying the water much doesn't help a ton. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose my initial change was a bit too bold. I do think it should specify "Some historians" though. Aquabluetesla 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine/indifferent with the change to "Some historians". I "re"-reverted it because I thought that was the agreement. Feel free to change it back though, anyone. ~ HAL333 20:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I raised no issue with Aqua here as to the change of my edit (title) because it did not completely alter the overall issue being raised, unlike what they did here, which is usually considered WP:TPO...I know this first hand because it is the first and only time I have ever received a WP:BLOCK....Your behavior here should be reviewed by an admin, and I will wait to comment any further until that happens. Perhaps Courcelles is busy, so I will ping Valereee since I've raised the topic of a possible WP:TPO violation. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph breaks in lead[edit]

Skyerise, can we please stop edit warring over the number of paragraphs in the lead? It's becoming disruptive. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". Moreover, no editors found an issue with this in the FA process. ~ HAL333 13:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss content, not other editors. There is a change of topic from Senator to Presidential campaign. That requires a paragraph break per WP:PARAGRAPH. WP:LEAD's "four paragraphs" is a rule-of-thumb, not a hard limit. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the lead is broken down into four paragraphs: the first is a simple overview, the second covers his early life and lower state positions, the third covers his tenure as governor, and the fourth covers his career in the federal government. Regardless, you have no consensus for this massive change to an FA. Please revert it and gain consensus, or I will bring you to ANI. ~ HAL333 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Massive change??? I inserted a single line break. Also, you've now reverted my edit 3 times, while I've only reverted you 2 times. I'd be careful slinging around the term "edit-warring" if I were you. Technically, it only applies to editors who make more than 3 reverts on the same article in 24 hours. We don't go around posting warnings on user talk pages until an editor has make 3 reverts. Doing it after a single revert as you did a couple days ago is bullying. FA is not some kind of "protected status". And you won't know what the WP:CONSENSUS actually is until this discussion is joined by other editors and comes to a conclusion. Skyerise (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've reverted me three times and have not followed WP:BRD. This change has been reverted by two editors, although I am not sure if Aquabluetesla has strong feelings on the topic. ~ HAL333 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not reverted you three times. My first edit added a paragraph break. It was not a revert of anything. I reverted once on the 1st, and once today. That's it. The other editor made the same edit, and reverted themselves. Skyerise (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: Bold edit, Revert 1,Revert 2, Revert 3. It's pretty clear cut. Please revert yourself back to the WP:STATUSQUO. ~ HAL333 13:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess now you're just trying to prove you are the bigger edit warrior. Even if you are correct about my 3 reverts, you are now at 4. I won't revert you again today, but I'd be careful about WP:BOOMARANG at ANI, if I were you. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose adding a fifth paragraph. Please stop it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Weiss[edit]

In the main section of the article (before “Early Life”), the article states “Long was assassinated by Carl Weiss”. Should consider rephrasing this in light of contrary evidence such as https://circulatingnow.nlm.nih.gov/2018/09/11/letters-shed-light-on-huey-longs-murder-mystery/ DeniseLP (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the source, which is excellent and we'll be including it. By my reading, as of this datestamp this article gives due weight to presented evidence that Carl Weiss did not fire a fatal shot, as does the article on the assassination itself (which has a long subsection on the theory). By my reading, this interpretation of the evidence is still considered a minority view among biographies used for sourcing of this article. I'd be glad to hear discussion on the subject. BusterD (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the source is Very Poor. the sited source states: "Ochsner was not present in the Capitol that night but in his letters he told DeBakey..." ie he's giving us hearsay--he heard it from mystery person XYZ and we have zero evidence on the credibility of XYZ (did XYZ see it himself or did XYZ hear it from ABC who heard it from DEF....) credibility of fourth hand hearsay = near zero. Ochsner goes on to speculate about politics saying he relies on "dope" (ie rumor) I recommend leaving it out. Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Huey Long, as he is in Kaiserreich and Kaiserredux[edit]

Kaiserreich, and Kaiserredux, are two Hearts of Iron IV mods in which, when the Second American Civil War breaks out, he is the leader of the nation, The American Union State. This is significant, in that it is common knowledge within the community. But for some reason, when I put this down in text, it was reverted, with no further explanation. Until I have received comment, or a meaning as to why it has been removed, I am going to unrevert. Kingofmapps (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattmauler
Upon further inspection, it seems it was you perpetrated the revert.
'Not a noteworthy portrayal,' is incredibly debatable. I would say a good faction of those who follow the principles of Long today are inspired because of said portrayal (not necessarily a good thing, but a thing), and it has become a meme, and well-known thing in the community. While it may not be the knowledge of the average Joe, it is notable. Kingofmapps (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wargamer is a reliable sourcd so I'll leave this partly in - but you'll need an article with more than a single mention have the "often" claim. I'll tidy the language up. Carlp941 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's also mentioned in the article for his portrayals in culture V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to the talkpage. My intention with the initial revert and also the one I just performed is to limit the media section to important portrayals so that it does not become an exhaustive list of just mentionsorappearances in pop culture. That kind of trivia can easily get out of control. The article does not discuss Long's portrayal in the game as significant imo (see my edit summary - he's barely in the article); rather, it focuses on the mod as being special/popular. I have reverted again because I also saw another user remove this info recently (i.e., in agreement with me), so I believe it should stay with the stable version while we discuss this.--MattMauler (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I gotta with ya here, Wargamer is a reliable source, but needs more detail specifically about Long's portrayal to merit inclusion. Happy to leave it out for now. Carlp941 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huey_Long&oldid=1229260599"

Categories: 
Wikipedia featured articles
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
Old requests for peer review
Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured articles
FA-Class vital articles
Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
Wikipedia vital articles in People
FA-Class level-5 vital articles
Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
FA-Class vital articles in People
FA-Class United States articles
Mid-importance United States articles
FA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
FA-Class Louisiana articles
High-importance Louisiana articles
WikiProject Louisiana articles
FA-Class United States governors articles
High-importance United States governors articles
WikiProject United States governors articles
WikiProject United States articles
FA-Class biography articles
FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
Politics and government work group articles
WikiProject Biography articles
FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
High-importance U.S. Congress articles
WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
FA-Class socialism articles
Low-importance socialism articles
WikiProject Socialism articles
Hidden categories: 
Noindexed pages
Selected anniversaries articles
 



This page was last edited on 15 June 2024, at 20:08 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki