Talk:William Borah

Untitled

The article says "the reduced gold content of the dollar". In fact he reduced it to zero, so this is very misleading. How about he approved "the confiscation of all US citzen held gold as ordered by Roosevelt via executive decree". That would be much more accurate.

Untitled 2

Elected in 1906 for the 1907-13 term. A member of the Republican National Committee in 1908-12, he denounced Taft's nomination in 1912.

Senator Borah opposed the policy of President Wilson in regard to the League of Nations.

He opposed the Four-Power Treaty, too.

In 1922, he influenced the Senate by attacking the plan to give a financial loan to the Negro Republic of Liberia. Passage of the loan failed in the Senate in September, 1922, in spite of President Harding's approval.

The Liberians exulted.

Along with Senator Barry M. Goldwater and a few others, Senator Borah was one of the most active U. S. Senators of the 20th century.

70.17.166.121 16:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Navy appropriation bill of June 1, 1921 contains his proposal that disarmament ought to be enacted (he had proposed the adoption of a Constitutional amendment).

141.151.190.148 06:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Who's Tom Romano?

Terminology Note: "Ratification" of Treaties

It is very common for people to speak of a treaty being ratified by the Senate. Technically, that is not true. In the United States, treaties are ratified by the President. Before the President may ratify a treaty, however, two-thirds of the Senators present and voting must "advise and consent to ratification." John Paul Parks (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this the exact quote?

"Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided" ? If so, we need a reference to it. Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the citation for the Hitler quotation. It is a review of Marian McKenna's book on Borah. The reviewer is Donald R. McCoy and he does not mention Hitler or quote Borah at all. Probably, the quotation can be found in McKenna's book. I am going to check it later today. Mrbaker1917 (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The source of this quotation appears to be Marian C. McKenna, Borah (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1961), p. 360. McKenna cites William K. Hutchinson, "News and Articles on the Life and Works of Hon. William E. Borah," Senate Document 150 (Washington, D.C., 1940), pp. 29-40. I have read the passage in McKenna, but not the Senate document itself. I should add that the only source on this quotation appears to be Hutchinson, who was "a staff correspondent for the International News Service" (McKenna, p. 257). I just noticed that the quotation is not exactly correct, at least not as quoted by McKenna. There it is "talked with Hitler," not "talked to Hitler" (p. 360). Mrbaker1917 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now accessed the source McKenna refers to concerning this famous quotation. The source is the Hutchinson publication mentioned in footnote 9, but it is not quite accurate. Here is the way Hutchinson quoted Borah: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler -- all this might have been averted." I will change it on the page and give the exact citation in the note. The quotation means essentially the same thing; as a historian, though, I am circumspect of its authenticity. It was not uttered in public nor recorded by a public institution; it is hearsay, recorded by Hutchinson as he heard it. Borah had no opportunity to deny it, because he died before Hutchinson's piece was printed. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no other source for this quotation. Mrbaker1917 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great research work - this is the kind of thing Wikipedia needs more of. Korny O'Near (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why is it better to refer to the veracity of the quote as "questionable" instead of "unknown"? That seems to imply a value judgment against Mr. Hutchinson. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I thought a lot about this. I think "questionable" is neutral, as neutral as any adjective in this context. All it means is that it is worth questioning the reliability of the quotation. In fact, I have done some more research on this since re-writing the sentence and am as a result even less certain that Borah actually said this. So, I think questionable is simply more accurate than unknown.--Mrbaker1917 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So which is it? Do you support "questionable" because it's neutral and doesn't imply any value judgment, or because it does imply a value judgment and thus is more accurate? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cannot a word be both more accurate and relatively neutral?--Mrbaker1917 (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible; I just still find your statement that "questionable" is a neutral and non-loaded term somewhat... questionable. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Very funny.--Mrbaker1917 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitler Quote clean up

Removed claims that can not be verified and were stated by commentators and are not verifiable facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.216.10 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Borah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322090032/http://www.electricprint.com/academic/department/AandL/AAS/ANNOUNCE/vra/lynch/congress/congress1.htm to http://www.electricprint.com/academic/department/AandL/AAS/ANNOUNCE/vra/lynch/congress/congress1.htm

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Borah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125232034/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haywood/HAY_BBOR.HTM to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haywood/HAY_BBOR.HTM

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

An "In popular culture" section

William Borah was apparently the main character in a February 1963 episode of Death Valley Days. This information was added to the article in the last few days, but was then removed twice by an editor, who first said "I really don't think a fictionalized Borah is worth including" and then "we do not have "In popular culture" or trivia sections in FAs." I don't know what this means - there's no shortage of featured articles that contain an "In popular culture", "In fiction", etc. section, and some subjects of featured articles even have a separate article just for their cultural mentions/depictions. So I don't see any reason why this TV episode shouldn't get the same treatment. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Howis this significant to the reader wishing to learn about Borah, not a fictionalization of him? There's also WP: Citing IMDb to deal with ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's as significant as any of those other cultural depictions in the sections and pages I linked to. The episode is not being cited as a reference, so its veracity is to some extent irrelevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because a real person appears as a fictional character in a TV show, that does not mean it must be listed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that essay, but surely the fact that so many articles, let alone featured articles, contain this kind of information means that the consensus view is that there's nothing wrong with pop culture references? At the very least, it negates one of your main rationales for removing this information. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect most of them did not pass FAC in that form, but were added later.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, if you don't like citing IMDb, there's a short snippet about that same episode on the TV Guide website. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:OdWhile the sourcing is a concern, I don't see why it is worth including at all. It was not mentioned (as I recall) in the bios of Borah I used. It does not seem very significant or worthy of inclusion. Same for any video game appearances, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Support the view that it's rather of minor interest, - at least for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If we're referring to Wikipedia essays, these objections all seem to be of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety, as opposed to anything substantial (no offense). Korny O'Near (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's just that it's not very significant to Borah. Some fictional depictions shape how we view a person. This just seems obscure.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. Surely some people who saw that episode had their view of Borah shaped by it? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't known. I wasn't born yet. Could that be shown? Was there discussion of the episode anywhere, beyond the brief blurb in TV Guide?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That's an inordinately high standard of proof. If every fact here had to be not only verified, but its importance verified, this encyclopedia would be more or less empty. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a high standard for a FA to show that something is more than trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "show". I think the fact that it was a full episode of a popular network TV show is more than enough indication of importance. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that would follow from your original argument but hasn't gotten a lot of traction. I've made a number of suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What, to find other references about this TV episode? That sounds like the work needed to create an article about the episode, not to just mention it somewhere. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be the work needed to meet the consensus found in this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the two sources found for this TV episode establish both the verifiability and significance of it for inclusion in this article. Certainly, the episode seems to fit all the criteria for inclusion listed in the WP:POPCULTURE essay. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to show that, rather than simply asserting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Show what - significance? Can you point to actual established criteria of significance of "in popular culture" entries that are not yet met by this one? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain the general resistance (I shouldn't really say general, but it's been more than one editor) to including the fact that there was a full-length TV episode about Borah in the 60s? If there were a full-length episode of a TV series today about some sitting U.S. senator, you can bet that this information would appear in the article about the senator, most likely before it even aired. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, because it was not in Borah's lifetime and no secondary source says, to my knowledge, that it has affected his historical reputation. One episode is very trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Not in the person's lifetime makes it less important? And a 30-minute episode of a TV show is trivial? Where are you getting these views? They don't seem to match anything in WP:POPCULTURE. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

We are arguing in circles, that is why I break off commenting. There is no obligation to argue with you forever, and ceasing to do so does not leave you as the last person standing. I disagree with the addition, and I have stated my reasons at considerable length.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel like we're arguing in circles at all. You've stated various reasons, I've shown some of them to be in error, and for the remaining ones I've asked you whether they're based on any guidelines or just your personal opinion, and so far you've refused to answer. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Except we've discussed policy and guidelines above.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that - the only guidelines you've brought up are WP:Citing IMDb (no longer relevant here) and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is time for both of us to step back and allow oxygen in the room for other voices to be heard.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been hoping since the beginning to hear from others as well. Still, feel free to respond to my questions if you want. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Child

Is Paulina Longworth Sturm Borah’s daughter or is her father Nick Longworth. According to find a grave etc. he is her daughter. Your thoughts? 2007DodgeRam (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Borah's views on women's suffrage

In spite of the quality of this article, Borah's views on women's suffrage are entirely absent. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/People/Women/Part3_TheLastTrench.htm This source above does a good job at discussing it, should we add a new section for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be several sources on this. I’ll write something. Give me a few days.—Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I know this reply is late, but thanks for adding it. :D PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

1936 Presidential Campaign and Final Years - Proposed Substitute Amendment to the 14th Amendment

There has been so much interest in the 14th Amendment, and I came across this article that said that in 1937 Senator Borah proposed an Amendment. Philadelphia Inquirer article states that one of the changes in Amendment would have eliminated penalties against those that supported the Confederacy.

I don't really know enough about Senator Borah to include this addition to his wikipedia article, but I thought someone else could review it and integrate it because I am sure it would be of interest. Lrgriffin3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Since it apparently went nowhere, I suspect there's nothing we can say. Interesting he took out the Insurrection Clause ... since the youngest people subject to it would be well in their nineties by then, I guess he thought it had no further applicability. Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)