Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:38, 24 December 2010

This editor is an Apprentice Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

|My Lakeland Terrier Is The Editor In Chief

This user is interested in the history of the United States.

How are you holding up?

The last big thing I did on WP was add about 100 references to the AL page. It wore me out (pant, pant). I still really want to get the article on the front page, which requires it passing WP:FA, which is not easy. It took me and another guy 3-4 tries to get Jackie Robinson on there, and the way it happened was I tried and failed, and then someone in a similar way to you came along and gave the article one last (humongous) push. Then they and I ran the FA gauntlet and finally succeeded.

Anyways, I'm wondering if you're getting tired of it, or if you think the article might be getting close and want to try. The FA criteria, in short, is that the whole article is referenced with the highest quality sources, and is well written (and then some minutiae). What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you find some refs?

Hopefully you still have a copy of Donald. Would you use it to add refs for the first para in the Abraham_Lincoln#1864_Election section? Same with the first para of the Abraham_Lincoln#Gettysburg_Address section? It's looking pretty good. One of the first things they'll say at FA is para such and such is unreferenced, so hopefully we can stamp those out. The easiest way to do that just to remove everything that's unreferenced, but as you may have noticed on the talk page, people are prickly about removing stuff. If Donald doesn't mention it, we can try removing it and see what happens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do.Carmarg4 (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The two references requested have been added.Carmarg4 (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the FA subject. One requirement is that the lead summarize the body of the article, and not contain any info that's not in the body. If it does have refed info, that info can be moved into the body so that it's in both. Anyways, that's just one of the rules.

I mention it because in the lead it says "Copperheads and other opponents of the war criticized Lincoln for refusing to compromise on the slavery issue." And there isn't another mention of Copperheads (politics) in the article. I decided to mention it here instead of on the AL talk page, since we're (and mostly you) the ones who are running this show. So, what do you want to do? I think the rest of the sentence accurately summarizes the body, so we could just remove the copperheads word. Or we could add the word copperheads somewhere lower to justify it. Whatever you think is best. If you want to keep it, I can find a ref, I imagine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC

I will look at the Copperheads (not my addition I don't think.) I appreciate your comment on the lead because I had been wondering about the ref issue there. I have added some cites to paras you mentioned. A couple didn't really need it but no harm in breaking down cites to remove the doubt. On another issue, I noticed a comment somewhere in the FA guidelines about diversity of references...I know the article is now loaded with Donald and can only hope someone can help with other sources if that issue is raised...in terms of my own reading, you'll recall my presidents project..I must move on in my reading to Johnson. That is apart from our effort here, though.Carmarg4 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the lead doesn't need refs as long as the body has refs to support it. I think we'll be OK as far as diversity goes, but it may be an issue. Donald's book is considered the Lincoln bible, so there's some leeway there. More important than that is to not have any non high quality refs. I'm going to remove those soon (I noticed a Pawn Stars cite). There's probably a couple other obvious things, and then I think we're ready to nom. Enjoy reading about Johnson. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit to the lead is done and I agree about Donald...I'm trying to be careful when I pick my biographers. But...there WILL be a relaxing fiction (Baldacci-though he is becoming more real with time) before going back to bios.

Ha! There are too many stamps. I'm not really sure we need any of them, since the body doesn't discuss them (I don't think).

Also, I've added a couple of citation needed tags in the later sections of the article, in case you have something for them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I looked at the article and had deleted the ref. to the stamps thinking one or two had been removed already; whatever. I see the tags; I'll take a look.

We're getting there

I just finished going through the refs, and they at least meet a cursory inspection. There's still some "citation needed" tags in the article, which are not allowed at FA. If you can't get to them, I'll try and do them in the next couple of days. Then, I figure we nominate it and see what happens.

By coincidence, George Washington just failed its third WP:GA (Talk:George Washington/GA3). GA is the step below FA. The review was pretty thorough, which is actually kinda harsh, since the review should have just said "You're 150 references and 20 books shy of making it." Then the nominator could have just given up if they wanted to, instead of being strung along. I guess the reviewer is not American, so they didn't know what it needed off the top of their head.

And some fun facts for you: You, I, and the rest are probably the most widely read Lincoln scholars in history, You're number 2 with a bullet, AL is a WP:VITAL article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I enjoyed seeing that data. I think I hit all the tags. Let me know if I missed any (and where they are).Carmarg4 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's one in the second para of "Domestic measures", and I think that's all the tags. And I just noticed the third para in that section has no refs. Same with the second para in "Assassination". Also the end of the last paras in "War Begins", "Secession winter 1860–1861" and "Republican politics 1854–1860". And I think that's it. An easy way to the find the correct page in Donald is to use google books, like here. You can search for "emancipation" or whatever on the left, and while it may not let you read it, it usually tells you the page number so you don't have to thumb through your book. That's how I did it for a while, back when I had Donald checked out from the library. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. And thanks for the tip on Google books.Carmarg4 (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Very cool. I'll probably nominate it tomorrow. It will be a co nom, with both of us.

So, a bit of advice on an FA nom. If someone says "paragraph 23, sentence 2 needs a ref", or "the link to Gettysburg should be to Gettysburg address" then we have to deal with it. It's like they're the customer, and the customer is always right. There's no point in arguing (at least early in the nom). But if someone is like "there's too much about his family and not enough about the civil war", or vise versa, you want to sit on that kind of comment for a bit. Someone else may come along later and say "there's too much about the civil war, and not enough about his family". These are (somewhat) subjective decisions, and we want to see what people think in general, in case an early commenter is out of step. It will become apparent what's going on pretty quick.

Basically, we don't want to do a bunch of work that will then be thrown out. For instance, one thing you mentioned that I think will be OK, but you never know, is the diversity of sources. We don't want to fix a bunch of issues using Donald cites, only to then find out later that we need to use other sources. The work we do could be wasted in a situation like that. So, let's take it slow to begin with, and see what's going on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes alot of since. I had that sort of mindset when I raised the question about the Redefining Republicanism section. It's important to remember that one's viewpoint is but a minute part of the worldview, all the pros and cons and value-added variables aside. Another thought I have is...that if someone has a valid suggestion to improve something, it won't hurt to ask them if they would like to contribute on the issue.

Format question...I note that the end of the cite template (</ref>) in each case has a line of its own. Is there a reason for this? Does it unnecessarily take up more memory? (I saw a suggestion that FA's are usually between 50 and 100kb.)Carmarg4 (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The </ref> aren't like that on most articles. It must have been someones preference. I find it harder to read this way, myself. The effect on the article's size is negligible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Abraham Lincoln/archive2

It's up. Put it on your watchlist. Sometimes it takes a few days to comments, but I have a feeling AL is going to draw them in faster than normal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm encouraged to read about that person's library on Lincoln in case we have that diversity of resources issue.Carmarg4 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Things may be different because it's AL, but usually reviewers don't help much. In my case, I'm a lazy reviewer, and will say "para 20, sentence 3 has teh instead of the" instead of fixing it myself, sometimes. Anyways, it's going good enough so far. If a reviewer makes all there comments in one go, it will take them a while just to read the article, so it will probably pick up by tomorrow. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You never know. I forgot to do the dash minutiae, and someone did it for us. Very cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As an example, I fixed one of the mentioned problems. See here. In this case, they were using asterisks (which do one level of indenting plus a little bullet point), so I told them I fixed it, with two asterisks and my signature to set it separate from their comment. If we fix something, we want to make it easy for the reviewer to know we fixed it, so they won't bother us about again. Customer is always right and all that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a few more. I'm going a bit overboard (or maybe just above and beyond) with responses and diffs right now (examples). There are too many issues to address, especially small ones, to do this every time, but it's best to impress at the beginning. You should do it however you feel comfortable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! The comments really did come in overnight didn't they. You are right about letting people know underneath each entry about the fix etc. No other way to keep track. I will be do what I can to help of course; but it looks daunting!Carmarg4 (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we may not make it. People take AL extra seriously. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you fix the ""He had an older sister Sarah (Grigsby) who died while giving birth at a young age" - suggest rewording for flow and clarity" one? It's hard to do without the book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not looking good for us. But, I don't want to give up just yet. I made a comment about seeing how things are in two days.

If nothing else, it illustrates an interesting point. You may have read media reports about the unreliability of Misplaced Pages (if not, they exist in spades). But you can see from the AL FAC that we really do do good work. You're a retired attorney, I have a BA in math-computer science, and the reviewers are probably a mix of BA, MA, and PhDs in history and whatnot. A lot of expensive education and experience goes into these things! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a very informative process. I see there is a formal PR but no question the nomination/response is quite an informal PR in and of itself. AL is certainly the better for it, just after one day. I will try to do what I can to address the suggestions and let the rest take care of itself. I regret that there isn't as much interest in solutions as there is in identifying the problems, but it is what it is. Carmarg4 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the numero uno editor on the list you provided (JimWae?) and he is a senior editor. I haven't seen his name show up so i wanted to make sure he knew of the nom. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised to see the nom taken down that quickly. Query, whether the guidelines for removal are fashioned to facilitate/encourage the upgrading of the article. I would have thought a removal would require a comment, at least when it is evident that people are actively working on the issues raised. I'm assuming FA's have a higher hit frequency, and the powers that be would want an important topic like L to get into that group. A very interesting land, this "world of wiki" ! I'll try to help with the remaining comments despite the removal (Johnson is looming over the horizon, though.) Carmarg4 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been closed that fast. I think it's because of AL's importance or something. I can't talk right now, but we should discuss what we want to do soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So the FAC was closed

That closer is mercurial, so whatev. You're not supposed to edit a closed FAC, so I copied the content (preserving the copyright, long story) to User:Peregrine Fisher/ALFA2Archive. I continued working on it at User:Peregrine_Fisher/ALFA2Archive#This_is_where_we_left_off_before_the_FAC_was_closed. I've added sections so we don't have to edit the whole page at one time anymore.

I don't know how you're holding up, but this is probably the best chance we'll have to "finish" the article (that's kinda what FA means). We could do a peer review. PR is like FAC but it doesn't end with a pass or fail, and I personally find it less motivating. And, the feedback we've gotten so far is more detailed than 90% of peer reviews, although AL is admittedly special, and apparently people are willing to go crazy with it even at PR. Also, even though FAC doesn't bring in much outside help, I think PR brings even less.

So, I think if we can finish off the comments we've gotten so far, we might just nominate it again. I doubt it would be closed quickly again, but mercurial is an apt word (and fun to say out loud!), so I can't say for sure. Tell me what you think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just to blather a bit, we have a social structure here on WP, with a variety of ways to achieve social status. You've probably heard of the "admins", who are kind of like our police/judiciary/janitors. That's one indicator of status, along with time served, number of edits, and amount of quality content (among others). Getting AL up to FA status fits in the quality content category, and it's basically the pinnacle. That's why it's so hard to do, and everyone is taking it so seriously. The only accomplishment that I would say is above it is being voted onto WP:ARBCOM, which is our supreme court. I guess my point is that getting AL up to featured status is just about the hardest thing to do on all of Misplaced Pages. And you're getting darn close. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think responding with the details is the only way to go. There's no way this thing gets to any elevated status without an ability to identify SPECIFICALLY where or how the article is flawed. If it is to be disqualified arbitrarily then so be it. I.E. Is wiki-pedia or peer-pedia? No response from #1 editor who is a senior. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Wae, the top AL editor by edit count, did make an edit to the AL page after you left him a comment. I don't think he had edited it for quite a while before that. Still, I don't think he's going to go crazy with improvements. I had to wait a year before you came along, for instance. As you say, it's easy to find people who will comment, but they don't do much beyond that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BTW for moving the archive so the work can continue. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A copy editor has shown up, woohoo! We have a c/eing service, and I requested help there back when the FAC was live. They'd like us to leave the article alone for a day while they work. See Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#Greetings_from_the_Guild_of_Copyeditors - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

great. FYI I added an edit underway tag to the article. Let me know if that is not apropo. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Duplication

Hi, I noticed you put a {{GOCEinuse}} tag on Abraham Lincoln. As you are aware, I was trying to work out with Livitup who was going to work on this. I have already started on this article and will be moving my edits here soon. I'm wondering how you fit into this picture so that we do not duplicate our efforts. Also, are you participating in the Drive? Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. CarMar and I are trying to get this article up to FA status. I hadn't heard about the copy edit conflict until this post, but CarMar and I are stopping our edits until you or Livitup say it's OK to continue editing again, so as to avoid edit conflicts and wasted work. I don't know where CarMar lives, but I think he starts (roughly) in the morning on the East Coast of the US. (This is an evening on the West Coast comment). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to clarify things for CarMar, User_talk:Livitup#Abraham_Lincoln - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

AL

I'm going to SF this weekend. WP is flying me there for a get together, if you can believe that!

Anyways, I think I'll start going back to checking off 5+ things a day on our left over FAC list after that. I hope you'll continue to help, because it motivates me a lot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed! Make sure you got a return ticket, Pal. I will continue helping on AL. BTW, Happy EP day! Carmarg4 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the rest of the FAC comments

I think they're done, now, other than ones like "the whole thing needs a copy edit", which it looks like you've done. We can wait on that copy editor, I guess. I may do some copy editing myself to speed things along.

Have you thought of becoming an admin? I'm not one, but it gives you some extra buttons that are pretty cool. If you are interested, you need to meet a few requirements. You need to be able to create content, and as I've mentioned getting AL to FA is the pinnacle. You need to be on Misplaced Pages for more than six months, which you'll probably have pretty soon. You need to take part in some admin related activity. I recommend throwing Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History or a few others from http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_deletion_sorting on your watchlist, watch it for a bit, then start participating (only if it interests you). Do that for a while, and you'll be a shoo in. I just mention it because the hardest one is the first, and you're already on your way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, which is a compliment I very much appreciate. I will add those to the watchlist and see what's up with them. I am down to the 2d Inaugural on my c/e and enjoying Baldacci's Camel Club. Thanks again, Pal. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Pal. You've made a heck of a lot of progress working down, so I'm going to do what I can working (haphazardly) up from the bottom. "Administration, cabinet and Supreme Court appointments 1861–1865" has been bothering me, so I did that one first, even though it's not the last one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am done with my c/e. The next step is to wait for the c/e to get to the article ? Carmarg4 (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

LBJ

I know you said you are on a "...personal project to read a bio on every POTUS; K is #17". Although I have read a fair number of different works on JFK & RFK, as for LBJ, I have only spot read sections for cross-checking information at this point. I don't know where he is on your reading list but there is the Robert Caro series (but it is over three books and the book on the presidency has not been finished yet and wont be out until 2012). "Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961-1973" by Robert Dallek, I thought was good for the sections I read. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Pal. I did read Caro but didn't know another volume was coming out. That's a whole bunch of LBJ, isn't it. I'm now using the presidents collection from Easton Press - they send them in no particular order - based on availability. I'm half way thru Kennedy, Nixon has arrived and Harding is en route. The LBJ book will be Dallek which is 2 vol. (Flawed Giant is #2. - I will look forward to it) Did you know alot of these are now available for free at google books ? This was mentioned to me by a fellow Wikipedian as an easy way to get refs while you edit on the computer. Unbelievable.Carmarg4 (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I have heard of but not used Google books yet. Out of curiosity, what book on Nixon did you settle on? BTW- here is something you might find interesting and a group you may want to join, herein on Wiki:WP:USPREZ. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be using his 2 vol. set of memoirs...the first autobiography I've done. I have indeed joined the pres. group; I haven't had any contact with anybody though. Hope you enjoyed the Cuban Missile Crisis anniv. over the weekend (I didn't even notice the date until I read it in the paper, and I've been on that for the past week!)Carmarg4 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about the anniv. BTW-There is an interesting piece I read (last year) about the U-2 flight of Charles Maultsby; you may know it. He was sent out to fly near the Arctic Circle to get readings as to a recent Russian nuclear test. His flight should have been grounded but was not. One has to wonder who did not pass the word or thought it was a good idea (as he was flying near the USSR during the "crisis" days. Then, the pilot gets lost and flies 1,000 miles off course and over USSR airspace! The USSR sends up intercept flights, to no avail. Kennedy gets word and as the assistant panics, JFK states: "There is always some poor bastard who does not get the word." This to try to calm things down. Well the pilot finally lands in Alaska. And you know well the rest of the story.

As for Nixon, just watch the bias of the autobiography. I have to prep for a trial, next week, so will not be on Wiki much the next two weeks. Kierzek (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed!...Nixon's credibility definitely deserves a skeptic...but I guess they all do. I do recall that U-2 story - Reeves had that K quote as well. I think K really struggled with the changes his directives as they passed through the military's chain of command.Carmarg4 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

JFK-Southeast Asia

This section is now in much better shape, with your additions playing a large part. I have not been able to find the cite for the long time included quote in the article: "Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, remarked 'This kind of neutralism...is tantamount to surrender'.." Maybe you can dig it up. It bothers me I have not come across it thus far to read it in context; to see if it needs as further explanation or not; and also to add a citation to it or remove it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Found the cite using Google books. I am within 50 pages of the end of the Reeves book (he stops when the shots are fired in Dallas) so I am almost done with my trashing of this article, Pal!Carmarg4 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Abraham_Lincoln

We may not get much. I figured it's worth a second try. I'm pretty busy lately, but I'd like to put AL up for WP:GA (FA light). Here's the issue. I think I can take it through myself, but I probably won't be super quick to respond. Your generally pretty quick, so if/when you beat me to things, you'll end up doing a disproportionate amount of the work. I want this to be fun collaboration for both of us, so that's why I mention it. It's not always fun if it seem like you have to do most of the work. GA itself is fun regardless, though, it just isn't as good as FA (which isn't that fun). Thoughts? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I will help as much as I can with the GA, but I can resist the urge to do more than I really want. I will keep Kennedy as priority #1 until I finish the book (I'm 2/3 of the way). My goodness, the next book (Nixon) is on its way!Carmarg4 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Abraham_Lincoln - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher#Lincoln_copy_edit

WP:GAN may be started soon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's nominated. I'll keep you posted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's on.Talk:Abraham Lincoln/GA2 - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. I made a few prelim. remarks on things that have come up before etc. I hope we aren't retracing stuff we've already hit. I'd like to finish a final edit on Kennedy then I can help with the AL- GACarmarg4 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm trying to do as many as a can quickly. There's a lot of little grammar issues, and the reviewer spotting them makes it pretty easy to fix them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality of Lincoln

Since the article Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is related to Abraham Lincoln, why doesn't it bear mention in L's See Also section? Does it really need an RS to be in the See Also section? DaAnHo (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Warren G Harding

Thanks for all your edits and article improvements! Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good job on Harding article! Thanks for all your edits! Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have ordered a book called: Incredible era: The life and times of Warren Gamaliel Harding. This might give more information on his life and administration. The more I have read on Harding there appears to be some connection with himself and the alchohol industry. Dougherty reluctance to enforce prohibition may have been directly associated with Harding himself who as Senator always voted in favor of the alchohol industry and against any prohibition legislation. The question is whether Harding received any money from the alchohol industry while Senator or President. Does Russell cover any direct link with Harding to the alchohol industry?

I haven't come across anything real blatant, not yet anyway. That said, it's hard not to hold him accountable for the rampant corruption in the Prohibition bureau; benign neglect if nothing else - i don't think he really cared about it. We know he like to drink for sure. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Historians debate how much he knew concerning the scandals. I believe he was actually shocked with Forbes. Daugherty was different. His wife, Florence Harding, destroyed most of Harding's personal papers. That makes things tougher. Maybe there was something to link him with Daugherty. Harding must have known things since he often went to the gang house on K-Street, however, that is speculation. Maybe he was just aloof and did not care. Was Harding getting any money from the bootlegger kickbacks? If Harding did get kickbacks, what did he do with the money, possibly invest in stocks. Until more evidence is found, if ever, this is all speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There may be a "smoking gun" in the bootlegger corruption. Harding, according to one source, had a well stocked supply of bootleg liquor at the White House. Harding only drank with close associates or cronies, not at public dinners. Was Harding's "payment" from the bootleggers the actual stocking of the booze? That makes sense. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In my own view, I would say that any items he was given for personal consumption are SOP; it's like the accusation of patronage – that's SOP too, apart from the ethics of it. It's hard to call it particularly noteworthy. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Carmarg4, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wishing you a very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! Wishing you all the very best for the season. Thanks for all your help and support this year. Merry Christmas and may Santa be good to you! – SMasters (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Click to play!