Talk:1920 United States presidential election

untitled comment

It's an objective fact that, due to a massive stroke in 1919, Wilson was an invalid for the second half of his final term. (You do know that "invalid" means "a person incapacitated by a chronic illness or physical condition", yes?) The "broken" probably does violate NPOV, though, worse luck. — DLJessup 13:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Cox “had started minimum wage”

An anonymous editor added the comment, “[Cox] had started minimum wage,” to the description of Cox under “Democratic Party nomination”. I have removed this comment. First of all, the meaning of this clause is somewhat unclear: by “started”, do we mean that he signed a law or shepherded a law through the state legislature or was the first to advocate for such a law? The scope is also unclear: are we talking about minimum wage for the United States? Ohio? Cox's home town of Dayton? Secondly, I can't verify it at this time: Cox's article in Wikipedia doesn't discuss it, nor does Wikipedia's article on the minimum wage, nor does the Dayton Daily News' biography of their founder.

— DLJessup (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

References vs. Notes

In recent edits, I moved several notes into the Cite.php reference tags. I like the new reference tags because they have ease of navigability while maintain a small footnote in the article main text (as opposed to the appendices). In particular, I moved a citation to a book by Andrew Sinclair into the “Notes” section from the “References” section. Rjensen then restored the original citation in the “References” section, but left the citation in the “Notes” section. I went ahead and removed it, noting that we had duplicate references. Rjensen then yanked out the Cite.php reference tags with the edit summary “Sinclair was major source and has to be in refs; use Harvard referencing instead”. This floored me. You see, I agree that Sinclair was a major source, which was precisely why I moved it to the “Notes” section.

Let's take a step back here. One of the problems with the current standard appendix set-up on Wikipedia is that there is not a strong division between sources used to construct the articles, and suggested reading. The “Reference”/“External link” division makes the problem worse because (a) it blurs the distinction between web sites that are sources and ones that are merely suggested reading (some of which might become sources in the future) and (b) it tends to get suggested reading books mixed up with sources in the “Reference” section. Thus, in my parochial view, I actually wanted to get sources into the “Notes” section, where there's no question but that the item is a source and not merely suggested reading.

However, having given it some thought, I realize that Rjensen is probably more attuned to how the average reader will perceive the article: namely, that major sources should be in the “References” section, even though it will be mixed with lots of suggested reading. However, I still think that the Cite.php reference tags are to be preferred, so I will use the Cite.php reference tags with Harvard-style endnotes.

— DLJessup (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. “Harvard-style” in my final sentence is being used extremely loosely: all I mean is that the endnote consists only of the author, the year if there is more than one book by that author, and the page(s).

— DLJessup (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

DLJessup and I are not far apart. I prefer the Harvard system--even if it is cluttered--because it is much easier to make edits, additions and deletions. In a long article where the notes are a long way from the text this is a serious matter, but not here in this short article. I agree that users will go to the bibliography of additional books so they can find in a library (whatever we call it--References or Further Reading), and that major books like Sinclair have to be listed in it or else the user won't look for that important book. Rjensen 01:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stated cause for Republican win

This article seems to state that the main reason for the Republican win was Woodrow Wilson reneging on his promise to ask the British to give Ireland independence. Not to mention that it cannot possibly be true that this is the main cause, it states elsewhere (Warren G. Harding) was the desire to "return to normalcy" (i.e., an American public exhausted by constant reform followed by a war followed by even more attempts to reform): something which I have learned elsewhere as well. I may or may not change the text, but I certainly suggest a change even if I don't. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry Anderson

The link for the name Henry Anderson took me to someone born in 1800. Now I know there is no way this could be the same person, unless if someone that was 120 years old was on the VP ticket. (Which would be pretty funny actually!) But this is a common name, and maybe someone should start a page for whoever this is! (I did change the link btw!) Thanks.

The Robot 2000 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be Henry W. Anderson, more famous in that era than today. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Statistic Credibility

The statistics in the section "Results" don't seem to add up. From my calculations, the "Total" of the popular vote should be 26,764,825, but the article has something different.
Also, I have seen the percentage for Eugene Debs as 3.4% rather than 6.4%. Which is correct?
Jantaro (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Roosevelt as Running Mate

The introductory section states: 'To help his campaign, he chose future president Franklin D. Roosevelt as his running mate.' This sentance seems to imply a prior knowledge of Roosevelt's later victory which is confusing and unnecessary. The information could be more usefully summarised by condensing this sentance into a supplimentary clause of the sentance before. For example, altering 'Cox launched an energetic campaign against Senator Harding, and did all he could to defeat him. To help his campaign, he chose future president Franklin D. Roosevelt as his running mate.' to 'Cox, aided by his running mate (and future President) Franklin D Roosevelt, launched an energetic campaign against Senator Harding.' This edit also removes the unnecessary clause of the first sentance '...and did all he could to defeat him.'. In an election it can be reasonable assumed that one candidate, upon launching an 'Energetic campaign', will attempt to defeat his rival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.174.90 (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Debs' vote

There's continued tension over whether to include Eugene V. Debs in the info box. I'm open to persuasion, but I think Debs' candidacy leans towards the side of inclusion rather than exclusion (even though I've always hated the way the pictorial election infoboxes take up so much real estate at the top). He won over 900,000 votes, which would be notable even today. His campaign is famous for being waged from a federal prison (after conviction for obstructing recruitment in World War I); he was pardoned and released by the election's winner, Warren G. Harding. There's a historical continuity that some might seek with Debs' campaigns from 1900 to 1912, also with La Follette's campaign (supported by the Socialist Party) in 1924. Debs' vote in Kentucky exceeded Cox's margin over Harding, so at least the theoretical question could be raised whether Kentucky would have gone to Harding without the socialist presence on the ballot (in 1924 and 1928, Kentucky voted for the Republican slate of electors.) In Oklahoma, his vote almost matched Harding's margin over Cox. The 1929 World Almanac's table for the 1920 election lists Harding, Cox, Debs, Christensen (FLP) and Watkins (Proh.) Although he won no Electoral Votes, Debs' 3.4% of the vote significantly exceeds Strom Thurmond's 2.38% in the 1948 election. None of these points by itself is conclusive, but together they make an arguable case for inclusion, so I'm restoring Debs' column until this can be argued out here, rather than in edit summaries. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Debs or no Debs isn't that important. One could argue that his presence in the infobox confuses the issue, since there are no Debs states and the info box corresponds to the map below. Debs in 1912 would seem beyond question, since he pulled a 5% share or more, as I recall; here it's not so simple. Parley Parker Christiansen pulled 1%, but no love for him? What's the cutoff? What's the rationale? There are too many graphics for the content presented, at least to my taste — all those also rans should be blown away. And there is room for a Debs picture in an appropriate space down the article, it would seem — his 1920 campaign FROM FEDERAL PRISON, is certainly noteworthy... But as for the info box, I'd keep it with the two guys that won states, myself. (BTW, if one needs evidence that the Republican and Democratic parties have "flipped" ideologically in the last century, get a load of the red and the blue that map... Carrite (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Viewing him as a single individual in a single election, I don't particularly care whether he's in the infobox or not. The issue, implied above, is that almost every presidential election has a multitude of also-rans. I haven't checked all the results sections to see if any show more than the current nine-candidate limit for the infobox, but it might not matter since several have an "other" row in that table too. So far as I can tell, the overall consensus on U.S. presidential election infobox inclusion seems to have been a bright-line cutoff at 5% of the popular vote or carried one state. It's arbitrary, but it seems reasonable, and if it's going to be changed I'd like to see it be done through a new, hopefully uniform, consensus developed at the related Wikiproject. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

He took less than 5% of the vote, he received no electoral votes, and his share is less than the difference between first and second place. That he was famous is more or less irrelevant. However, this is not a contemporary election. It is historically significant that he once again received nearly a million votes (in fact, he had more than in 1912, despite the fall in his share). It is all the more significant because he received those votes in the shadow of the First Red Scare while still in prison for sedition. Thus, not withstanding the fact that he doesn't meet the tests we would normally apply, he should still be included. -Rrius (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm inclined to not include this information into the info box. There have been occasions where a third party candidate has come down through history as notable. 1912, 1948, and 1992 come to mind. I'm sure there are others. Point is, that despite being on the ballot, history kind of forgot about this guy. Its not that he wasn't popular in his time, but he made no lasting notable impression on the history books.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • reply - as a historian (admittedly one who considers himself in the tradition of Debs), I am stunned at your assertion that history forgot about Eugene V. Debs! American elementary and high school textbooks don't talk about him, as they refuse to talk about America's left heritage in general; but history does not ignore him or the movement he led. I will also point out that this electon represented the high point of Socialist votes nationwide, because soon after this election, the Socialist Party began losing many of its more radical adherents to the Communist movement and parties inspired by what was going on in the Soviet Union. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? This election is the one where Debs got nearly a million votes while in prison. That is the thing that was taught when I was in school, and that wasn't so terribly long ago. Do you know why socialism never took off here? Do you even know what the First Red Scare was? Like I said before, that Debs was famous in his time is more or less irrelevant. He was historically important, but more to the point, his role in this election was important. Saying what you have shows worrying ignorance. So much so that I hope you read some history before commenting again on what is and is not lost to history. I honestly hope you are being deliberately provocative, but I fear you actually believe what you said. -Rrius (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The fact that you may have strong feelings about an obscure individual in history does not alter the facts. He had very little lasting impact outside of his time period. His movement never caught on nationwide. Are you suggesting that his notability automatically increases because you personally read about him in a book? His role in this election did not alter the election results, nor was it the beginning of a new and radical movement. He was simply another "third" party candidate who received a few more votes than normal, but lacked the staying power to increase his popularity after the election was over. You have to keep the overall picture in perspective. If anything, it was the movement, and not him that was popular at the time.
    • As far as picking up a history book, how many have you read/written? I don't promote myself on Wikipedia. You seem to really enjoy your history, so do I, but unless you have written a book on history, you may be way out of your league if you want to accuse me of not having an understanding of history. --JOJ ^Hutton 17:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
      • "His movement never caught on nationwide"???? Do you know nothing of early 20th-century American history? Have you never heard of Norman Thomas, of the First Red Scare, of the Palmer Raids and the Socialists who were elected from West Virginia to New York to Milwaukee to New Haven, CT? Do you not understand that the American "commies" that everybody was afraid of, sprang out of splinter sects of Debs' Socialist Party? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
        • • Somehow it keeps being insinuated that I am so how unaware of this movement or the people who are part of it. This is untrue. Just because I do not believe that they are unilaterally notable or that Debs had a lasting impression on society, does not in fact make one ignorant of the conditions in which they lived. Is it your assertion then to feel that anyone who disagree with Debs lasting notability, must in fact not be as smart or as well read as you? Clearly that cannot be what you are implying yet that is what I am inferring. You cannot base ignorance of the facts based on the disagreement of the outcome. If nine Supreme Court justices hear a case and three of them disagree with the majority ruling, does that make them ignorant? No it only means that they disagreed with the others based on their interpretation of the law.
            • Clearly 3.4% of the vote is hardly a large amount in any election. Debs had a following within his ranks, but nothing more. The movement, as well as Debs role in it, failed to make any lasting impression in this country. That is evident by the fact that the next election was "wash" for the party.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
              • ???In the next election, the candidate endorsed by the Socialist Party received 16.6% of the national vote and 13 electoral votes. Some "wash"! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
                • That's even worse. They couldn't even organize their own candidate. I was looking at the Communist candidate. You are seriously grabbing at straws if you think that the entire 16.6% of the vote for the "Progressive" candidate were from the Socialist party at the time. One thing "true" historians attempt to do is make the theory fit the facts, not the other way around. Fact is that the party never even ran a candidate.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
                  • I doubt that OrangeMike was anywhere near to claiming that the 16.6% (with Wisconsin's Electoral votes, and second place in much of the West, including California) was mainly due to the Socialist Party. But the reasons that the SP endorsed La Follette (who ran for technical reasons on many Socialist as well as Progressive ballot lines) are much more complicated than a complete organizational breakdown. Although the 1928 Socialist vote was feeble, Norman Thomas won almost 900,000 votes competing in 1932 against both Hoover and FDR (as well as William Z. Foster of the Communist Party). ¶ However, it's much more useful for this particular discussion for both sides to weigh their words more carefully. Exaggerations just provoke counter-exaggerations rather than some quite valid points on either side of the argument.—— Shakescene (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I recall in the early days of Wikipedia a similar discussion resolved with the decision to simply make 1% of the vote the cut off. Whether or not that should be applied in all cases, I certainly think Debs deserved to be covered here more than a brief mention in a far down the article list of fringe also-rans. 3.5% of the national vote is no small accomplishment even if the candidate isn't in prison at the time, and a number of other US Presidential elections were swung by smaller margins. While most Americans didn't vote for Debs, he was certainly a national figure at the time. Note the cartoon caricature in the article is by Clifford Berryman, one of the most prominent main-stream political cartoonists of the era. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Something I haven't said is that info boxes should be kept to the bare minimum. That includes information as well as images. Keeping info boxes for presidential elections to the two main candidates should be the norm. Unless a third, and in some very rare cases a fourth candidate, made a lasting notable impact on the election. Criteria could include, receiving electoral votes( such as was the case in 1948 and 1968) and or made a notable impact on the election by actually influencing the final results on a national level (1992). Debs doesn't quite fit the criteria for lasting notability in this election. He's a minor footnote in an otherwise "boring" election. His inclusion as an info box image is undue weight compared to the percentage of votes received. JOJ ^Hutton 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Per the above, history certainly never forgot Debs; rather Parley Parker Christiansen and ol' Whatshisname that got beat by Harding are the guys lacking in that regard. But I think a bright line of 5% OR 1 STATE for Presidential infobox portraits makes good sense. This is not to denigrate Comrade Debs in the least — his Presidential campaign from federal prison is arguably every bit as historically noteworthy as Harding's win and Cox's loss. Just move Debs' picture down into the body of the piece, everyone's happy... Carrite (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I agree, Cox and Harding should be the only candidates listed in the infobox per the 5%/1 state rule, contrary to my previous edits. I understand that the other candidates are worthy of note, but do not meet the criteria for inclusion, based on consensus. RoyalMate1 23:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • PUT IN DEBS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.204.68 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Candidates' images

I tried to strike a balance between providing basic information (probably sought by at least some readers) and giving WP:Undue weight by adding Debs' party, vote and percentage on a second bank without image, home state, states carried, electoral votes or VP candidate (I also filled the resulting blank space with Christensen's vote, which I wouldn't otherwise have done, although it's useful in comparing the total left vote with those of previous and subsequent years.) Leaving out the extra images and lines also serves a useful purpose in keeping the whole box readable without too much scrolling. As I suspected would happen, a well-meaning editor outside this discussion added images of both Debs (low-quality from 1897) and Christensen (not visible to me, perhaps because it's a .tiff). Should we add some bracketed comment about not replacing the third-party images while this matter is still being discussed? ¶ Which raises a second issue, mentioned by Carrite above, what about all those cameos of unsuccessful candidates for the Democratic and Republican nominations? They definitely belong in the rather stubby articles on the 1920 Republican National Convention and the 1920 Democratic National Convention, which would benefit from some elaboration and filling out, but we might not need so much detail (giving due weight to Undue Weight) in this article. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got a much better image of Parley Parker Christensen, I'll try to get that up on his biography page and work on his bio a little bit in the coming week. I like the current info box with 2 portraits and 4 totals very much, that strikes me as an excellent and informative compromise. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

more about McAdoo

OK, I see the blocking of McAdoo being nominated. Notice this additional information in McAdoo's article here on Wikipedia:

'A committed "Dry" with respect to Prohibition, McAdoo's first Presidential bid was scuttled by the New York state delegation and other Northern opponents of the banning of alcohol at the 1920 Democratic National Convention.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Republican Delegate Vote Maps

Can someone explain to me why the maps are coming out the way they are? The moment they are uploaded to the Commons, they apparently are squished, the numbers growing larger, text pushed in, etc. What happened? --Ariostos (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DC

On the map, DC is colored as if it voted Harding, it could not vote, could someone please fix this? FollowerOfHank (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Racial issues

Can some discussion be added to this article about the candidates' positions on racial (especially African American and Native American) issues? It seems strange that the southern states, which were known for their racist views, voted so strongly in favor of a ticket including Franklin D. Roosevelt. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

See Solid South. The Democratic Party was politically dominant in the Southern United States from 1877 to 1964. Dimadick (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Summarization of the Farmer-Labor Convention

To be frank, I am struggling to do this; summarization in general is not one of my strong suits, but the fact that I have a massive load of information to work with is not making the task any easier. I can provide articles from the New York Times that can be used to fill in the section, but I need another person to do the actual breakdown of the articles into a proper entry. If someone is available to do this please let me know. Ariostos (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)