Talk:Huey Long/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Private army

I thought he had a private armyFalphin 19:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

No, no private army, but he did used the Louisiana State Police at times as if it were his private army -- User:Badtux 26 May 2006.

NPOV issues

Doesn't this article have NPOV issues? seems to be a lot of unsourced rumours here (shot by his own guards, dictatorial tendencies, unprecedented levels of graft) compared with very little about the public works programme, taking on oil companies, etc. 86.135.227.101 19:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it is difficult to talk about Huey Long because there is so much unsourced rumors and innuendos floating about, for example, some people apparently believe Huey created the Louisiana State Police as his private army, when in fact it was created in 1922. Dictatorial control of the press? In fact, the Louisiana press was almost universally hostile to Huey Long, not surprising since it was owned by the elite who Huey blamed for Louisiana's problems. The Shreveport Times chortled when the Caddo Parish School Board refused the free textbooks that Huey provided for schools, proudly stating that "the expense of buying textbooks teaches our students to value education" (note: taught my grandmother to drop out of school because her family of 11 children could only afford textbooks for the male members), and the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the state's most-read major newspaper, regularly ran editorials decrying Long as evil and depraved. A few smaller newspapers, such as in his hometown of Mansfield, were more conciliatory towards Long. I'll see if I can get a copy of one the editorial cartoons that the Times-Picayune ran, they make the anti-Bush cartoons run by left-wing bloggers look tame. User:badtux 26 May 2006
The complaints about his control of the press wern't about how he succeded in making them like him but about how he tried to violate the 1st amendment in using government power to supress the ones that did criticise him(the article even states that at one point he got a law passed forbiding criticism of elected officials.) this is in response to badtux's coments. Just because things are critical of a person dosn't mean that they arn't true and over all I find this article FAR more forgiving of him than almost all theother sources I have seen. 71.112.93.170 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Charity Hospitals?

This article doesn't mention Huey's funding of the Charity Hospitals at all. I'm not a Huey Scholar (although if I can dig up one of my books on the Longs I could get my cites correct, I suppose) but I see no mention of the Charities, or for that matter, now that I think about it, his support of LSU and the fact that he started the LSU Medical School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polydactyl Kneazle (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 November 2005

In the section marked 1930-1932 the second paragraph states the designer of the Charity Hospitals while Long was governor.Bee514bee 04:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)July 2, 2007

Curious pattern

I would award this the Unlikely Target of Long-Term Vandalism Barnstar, but apparently someone's taken that one off the list.--Pharos 03:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not surprising Long was a colorful and controversial figure who is still the subject of films or documentaries. That said wasn't he generally called "Huey P. Long?" Granted Google search has 50% more for "Huey Long", but I'm not sure that's significant.--T. Anthony 12:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did go by both Huey P Long and Huey Long.Sattmaster (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Assassination Theories

I examined the site which supposedly supports the claim that eyewitnesses saw no gun in Weiss's hand. It says nothing about it. I will be removing this statement later this evening unless someone can support it with citation.--Ramon omar 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not likely that the details of this incident will ever be known. I edited the summary of the shooting to describe that he died. Readers who are interested can see the details and theories about his death later in the article. RPellessier | Talk 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know who killed him, or if anyone was jailed or convicted???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by XX EOIN XX (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, the wiki article simply says "when suddenly a man appeared and shot him", while the article "Who killed the Kingfish" (already in the list of references) and the List of assassinated American politicians suggest that there is a controversy about how and if an assassination happened. I think this should be made more clear in the article, including Long's worries about a murder plot against him. -- Kistano (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
there is no controversy among the reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography?

Considering the enormous number of books written on Huey Long, I'm surprised there's no bibliography attached to this article. I'll be putting together a very selected bibliography in a week or two, as soon as I'm back home in Baton Rouge. --Michael K. Smith 15:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't wait. I had a free couple of hours from my conference and dug into my own files, and posted a selected list. If the prefatory note isn't acceptable, someone can delete it. --Michael K. Smith 17:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No references at all?

The article contains plenty of detail, but not a single references. Bibliography does not equal references. Bibliography is for further detail. But what was used to create the article? Was it copied from some other site? Patiwat 10:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been quite a few modifications to this article since, but the bulk of the material was written by me earlier this summer. I used these 5 books as references,and listed them in the bibliography:
  • Boulard, Garry. Huey Long Invades New Orleans: the Siege of a City, 1934-36. Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing Co., 1998.
  • Brinkley, Alan. Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression. New York, NY: Knopf, 1982.
  • Hair, William Ivy. "The Kingfish and His Realm: The Life and Times of Huey P. Long." LSU Press, 1991.
  • White, Richard D., Jr. Kingfish: the Reign of Huey P. Long. Random House, 2006.
  • Williams, T. Harry. Huey Long. Knopf, 1969.
At the time, I didn't really think of citing every sentence, especially since a lot of the material comes from several books simultaneously. If there were a couple of specific things in particular you think should be cited I could try and dig up page numbers and such, but I'm really not up for re-reading all five books in order to cite the entire article.Praxedis G 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I can give one citation for the "alternate theory" of Long's death. It's contained in "Bones, A Forensic Detective's Casebook" by Dr. Douglas Ubelaker and Henry Scammel on pages 223-226, although all Ubelaker determined was that so many bullets hit Weiss from all directions that it might be a bit surprising if nobody else was injured. DavidJohns 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Average Family Income?

In the text it says he wanted to guarantee a $2000-$3000 minimum annual income which is characterised as approximately 1/3 the average family income. I question this. In the 50's a $10,000 a year man was a big guy. Probably equivalent $100,000/yr in the mid to late 70's/early 80's. How then was $6000-$9000/yr the average family income in the middle of the depression? Someone has seriously messed things up here I think. I could be wrong but even a corvette only cost 2 or 3 grand at one point, and they didn't show up till the 50's. Seriously, this has to be WAY off base. CLEARLY citations are required or this article should be started from scratch with only citable material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 11 February 2007

It might be useful, at least on this discussion page, to consider the use of an inflation calculator, of which several exist online. By that calculator, the purchasing power of $2,500 in 1934 would be $37,640.03 in 2006. Typofixer76 (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lt.Governor, fired?

How could Governor Long fire Lieutenant Governor Cyr (an elected official)?. This needs to be explained. GoodDay 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified how Cyr was removed form office and added a citation to the article. Praxedis G 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The citation isn't linked. GoodDay 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I cited a book, not a website, so it's not supposed to be linked. Praxedis G 20:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that. I ment to say, there wasn't a 'direct' to the Bibliography/References of this page. There's is now (you've just fixed it), thanks. GoodDay 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I should've figured that that's what you meant.... Praxedis G 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality of article

Seems to have a lot of good material, but without someone giving inline citations for quotes and assertions from scholarly sources, the article is unlikely to get the recognition it deserves. From what I've seen, reviews for good and featured articles are rigorous.--Parkwells (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of end of senate term

If Long died on September 10 1935 why is the end date of his senate service given as August 30 1935? Geoff97 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tupac quote

While I can't be sure, I would guess that Tupac (spelled Tupacc in the article) was actually referring to Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party.

70.177.45.140 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

income tax cite

"We propose to limit the amount any one man can earn in one year or inherit to $1 million to the person." is in the famed Share the Wealth speech cited. Sems prety clear that this means a 100% tax rate at $1 million. Would you prefer that it just state "No one would be allowed to inherit or earn more than $1 million in one year" for absolute accuracy? Collect (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sean Penn 2006 film "All the Kings Men"

why no mention of Sean Penn's 2006 film "All the Kings Men" in the article or references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the article already contains information about the novel by Robert Penn Warren, upon which the film is based. --Florida Is Hell (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Assassination

Huey was an ardent critic of the Federal Reserve. Everyone who has opposed the bankers and the FED have died.

Abraham Lincoln refused to borrow money from the bankers and printed millions of "greenbacks", dollars without debt attached to them, dollars that represented public works and was not borrowed or had to be given to bankers with interest.

John F Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 was to do the same thing shortly before he got shot.

Louis Thomas McFadden another senator and also ardent critic of the federal reserve was also killed (poisoned) There were in fact two attempts on McFadden's life, a failed shooting and an apparent poisoning that made him "violently ill" after attending a political banquet in Washington. His wiki article simply states :"He died in 1936 on a visit to New York City."

BTW isnt Marble soft and would absorb much energy of any ricocheting bullet? Nunamiut (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

1927 levees, rising water, rising Huey

This little bit of partisan populism looks like possibly excellent detail to explain Long's power jump in 1927-8 and his rise to Governor in 1928: 1927, the year the levees broke. Any aspiring Louisiana historians out there to fill in details and tell the story more neutrally?--99.22.250.123 (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life

Whats this plantation deal? My great great grandmother was sisters with his mother and I live near the old homeplace. I have never heard anyone call it a plantation. Thats is not a word that was used in this area. It was just the Tyson home place. His farm was located in winn parish which he called the pea patch.

Sattmaster (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no citation for this claim and the only mentions I can find for "Tison Cemetery and Plantation" on the web are Wikipedia clones, so I will remove it. — JPMcGrath (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

POV

the second paragraph of the 'american literature' section is extremely POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V0X HUMANA ELEVEN (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It Can't Happen Here

Can we get a reference indicating how Long was the inspiration for Lewis' It Can't Happen Here? Seems fishy to me. R. fiend (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed that section, pending sources indicating it was written in response to Long, or that it has any real connection at all (beyond the fact that it could be read being as relevant to him). Our own article on It Can't Happen Here doesn't mention Long, which would be quite an oversight if its express purpose were to harm his presidential ambitions. -R. fiend (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
yes it was quite an oversight--there was no analysis at all. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Huey Long exhibit in Shreveport, LA IMG 3391.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Huey Long exhibit in Shreveport, LA IMG 3391.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Huey Long exhibit in Shreveport, LA IMG 3391.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Partially inspired by Italian Fascism

The article says "A Democrat, he was an outspoken populist, partially inspired by sansepolcrista Italian fascism." Is there any source that he was partially inspired by sansepolcrista Italian fascism? If not, I suggest to remove that part of the sentence.--88.72.170.95 (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Huey Long. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessed C?

How come this is assessed as a C-quality article? The bio seems very well rounded, legacy and fiction chapters somewhat repetitious and thinly referenced, but still, it's not too bad at all. Thoughts? BTW, thanks to writers. trespassers william (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's very well written. Out of the six criteria for B-quality, the article probably satisfies #2-6 but not yet #1 (sufficient inline citations). —Patrug (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
'exhaustive ' series of campaign visits? Meaning he visited absolutely every possible place? Or is 'wearying' 'exhausting' meant? FWIW, I don't think the article is especially well-written. 121.44.27.48 (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

bullets and historians

Why do historians not accept the hypothesis that Long was killed by his bodyguards given the fact that he was killed by a .38 and his supposed assassin was armed with a .22? Did Long's supposed assassin wrestle a gun from one of the guards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8101:2900:65F8:2E2B:4F8:62FD (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There have been many various conspiracy theories, and various ideas regarding the evidence. A lot of evidence has been lost, or wasn’t collected properly. The reported bullet sizes have varied from one caliber to another. The actual bullet was not preserved, and is not part of any forensic evidence. Bullets have turned up and been tested but then rejected. There were seven witnesses who were near the assassination when it happened, and their descriptions are well recorded. Boinkster (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sam Irby

I recently came across this Cracked.com article and while I'm not suggesting it as a source, they have a habit of citing their own sources and standards for sourcing not too dissimilar from our own. It details a series of events involving a former employee who was supposedly kidnapped by police and/or Long's bodyguards. The article provides two sources, Kingfish: The Reign of Huey P. Long By Richard D. White, Jr., and Huey Long's Louisiana Hayride By Harnett Thomas Kane, and gives page links so it's easily verifiable in the books. Any thoughts before I add a bit about it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article. You could abridge the anecdote in order to fit it into the Huey Long article, which is rather concise. I'd place it at the end of the subsection "Impeachment attempt (1929)", within the last paragraph or after it, as it deals with Long's ruthlessness.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I had in mind. Just three or four sentences in either that section for context, or in the "renewed strength" section, for chronology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
T Harry Williams in 1969 covered the story in depth pp 471-79. Irby denied to a federal judge that he had been kidnapped. His name appeared as author of a little book but the kidnapping part was written by the ghost writer and was full of grisly stories that "went beyond anything Irby had told him." ( p478) -- those fake stories are picked up by Cracked.com. It was the ghostwriter (named Fineran) who invented stories that Irby had been manacled to a tree, devoured by mosquitoes, starved, and threatened with death. Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Is there a source to back up the assertion that it's fake? If it is, that certainly also warrants mention.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't doubt that the story could be fake, as cracked.com is an entertainment site, not a journalism site (though they've tried to shift that in the past). But the sources the story is pulled from are both used in the article already, and there's no hint that they're not RSes. Meanwhile, I note with some curiosity that the bio by T. Harry Williams isn't used as a source in this article. It's not like it's out of print or anything. I think I'll check my library this weekend for a copy of the Williams bio, and see what he has to say. If a Pulitzer-prize winning bio contradicts a couple of less notable, later bios, then I think we should probably give the Pulitzer prize winner more weight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
When I re-wrote part of this article a few months ago, I was on a road trip and didn't have access to Williams bio. I've been meaning to get a copy and supplant some info. It's excruciatingly detailed (a good thing), but also criticized for being a bit biased as well as a tad outdated, so there's that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It's stated in the sources I gave above that Irby denied being kidnapped, so that much everyone agrees on. The disconnect here seems to be that my sources state that Irby recanted the denial to little media attention after the fact, claiming he gave it under duress, whereas the Williams source, according to Rjensen, doesn't mention this. So it may well be that there's no disagreement among the sources, just addition claims by the sources I gave, above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Williams says that Irby appeared in federal court and testified to Federal judge Borah that he voluntarily went on a fishing trip and was not kidnapped. Borah then threw out all charges against Long. Irby's ghosted book states, p 68 "The [federal] court reconvened, and I was again placed on the stand. Believing positively that I would be killed where I stood if I told the truth, I answered the questions as HUEY LONG had ordered and as WILKINSON instructed me to answer whenever I was hesitant or doubtful about the answer I should make. One question was asked for which I had been given no answer, and I did not speak, but refused to answer." Williams says Irby's book is full of falsehoods, but does not explicitly say this is one of them. Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Kaiserreich

Hearts of Iron IV is very popular video game and the Kaiserreich mod is its most popular mod, and the use of Huey Long in it is substanial as he leads of the larger factions in the game capable of leading the entire United States. A section about his reference in the Game was deleted previously but should be kept as its quite notable.2601:585:4200:2B50:99C0:3C5B:24EC:2722 (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, we need sources to prove most of what you just asserted. The section that was removed featured no sources, and seemed somewhat crufty and best and ORy at worst.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Gayoso Hotel

I checked both sources themselves, and they actually have different spellings. Hair (1996) says "Gayoso," p. 50; White (2006) says "Grayoso," p. 11. Gayoso Hotel was a well-known hotel in Memphis, and Google brings up nothing for Grayoso, so it appears that White is in error.--MattMauler (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Left"

Berlet & Lyons, and Raymond Moley. These reliable sources already cited in the article describe him as left-wing, "to the left" of FDR, etc. I read the article that you, IP, proposed as opposing this point of view, and what I see is that Jeansonne describes his administration as irredeemably corrupt, not as reform-minded as it tried to look, opportunistic, etc. None of that means that he wasn't a left-wing populist. If there's a specific place in your article that invalidates this, sharing the direct quote or page number would help. That wouldn't mean overruling the sources already in there, but it would help us discuss things from the same starting point.--MattMauler (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeansonne does not use the terminology of left and right about Huey Long, instead In his book on Huey entitled Messiah of the Masses he says "by attacking concentrated wealth and political power he appealed to a strain in America's agrarian tradition that was Jeffersonian and Jacksonian, perpetuated by the Populists of the 1890s" [188]. Historians call that a tradition on the left. In the rural world, the right supported the Big landowners. It differs from Marxism because it emphasizes the poor farmer while Marxism emphasizes the urban working-class. Huey Long's appeal overlaps heavily with FDR's appeal in rural areas. Rjensen (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misreading the situation, but I get the sense that the IP is conflating the adjective "left-wing" with, for lack of a better term, the adjective "good" (I'm basing this off IP's frustration that Long didn't "denounce communism, oppose anti-lynching legislation" or have a positive "relationship with Louisiana's progressive activists"). IMHO, Long wasn't a very good person, but that's neither here nor there, and doesn't have anything really to do with his political alignment. He was, and still is, considered a left-wing politician by most historians.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@MattMauler: @Rjensen: Someone is starting this up again.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, some quick sources I found: The War On Labor And The Left, published by Routledge, writes, "Leftist politics entered the mainstream, sometimes in unexpected ways. Huey Long and his Share the Wealth program attracted a mass following that rivaled Roosevelt's in the early 1930s." Who's the Boss?, published by VU University Press writes, "Populistic Senator Huey P. Long, who championed steep taxation of the wealthy, is usually considered part of the 'thunder on the left'."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, this article calls him one of FDR's "left-wing critics", Britannica calls him a "left-wing demagogue", and The Atlantic calls him a left-wing populist.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, now I'm pretty sure that certain editors are confusing the word "left-wing" with "good". Like I said before, imho, Long wasn't a great person, but his views at the time were widely believed to be left-wing. Some even called him a communist. Just because he opposed anti-racist laws and aligned himself with a priest doesn't making him right-wing.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Left-wing populist

The article currently calls Long a "left-wing populist." While Long was a populist, the view that he was left-wing is not a consensus view and probably has little support in reliable sources. Seymour Martin Lipset in his book, The politics of unreason: right wing extremism in America, 1790–1970, points out that Long was supported by big business and acted in their interests. He opposed organized labor, child protection laws and relief. Children for example continued to work in strawberry and cotton fields, factories and shrimp plants for as low as six cents an hour. Like Mussolini, Long "foster[ed] leftist demagogy, while basically maintaining the existing system of privilege." (pp. 194-199) Chip Berlet, who is used as a source in this article, says in Right-wing populism in America that Long combined elements of the left and right, not that he was left-wing. (p. 125) In Voices of Protest Alan Brinkley notes Long differed from the Left in opposing socialism, communism and statism, and blaming "hidden enemies" rather than the economic system. (p. 282.) TFD (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He was neither a progressive leftist nor a Marxist, but he is by and large considered a part of the left. I linked a handful of books (from UPs) and articles above that say as much.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This is correct. He is generally and widely viewed historically as one of, if not the biggest left-wing populist in American history (alongside William Jennings Bryan, perhaps). His Share the Wealth program was an explicit attack on Roosevelt from the left. This is the wide consensus of historians and how he is described and remembered in American history. Toa Nidhiki05 14:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The Brinkley passage you refer to lumps Long and Coughlin together without significant differentiation. They were significantly different, though, for our purposes here. Although Brinkley correctly states that Coughlin doesn't quite fit with pure fascism, he was much closer to that end than Long was; Coughlin was much more anti-Semitic ("hidden enemies"), openly supportive of Hitler, etc.--MattMauler (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Huey Long edits relating added info and changing Left wing populist to just a populist

I have added and fixed this Huey Long page and my edits have been constantly been undoed by a wikipedia account under the name of Toa_Nidhiki05 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toa_Nidhiki05. I wish to address this issue. I am 100% also willing to cooperate with Toa_Nidhiki05 and make compromises.

Please read the two conversations/sections directly above this one. Here this exact issue is discussed and you can see how we've come to the consensus, consulting reliable sources, to describe Long as being on the left of the political spectrum. It would likely be hard to overturn this consensus, but I/we am open to conversation. What won't work is repeatedly removing the word "left" from the article, or adding your other information without providing sources and discussing the changes here first.--MattMauler (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"Fascism" section

I reverted the addition of short section on fascism.
1. Huey Long never said the fascism/anti-fascism quote, according to historian Arthur Schlesinger and according to the person to whom he supposedly originally said it: They Never Said It (1990) by Paul F. Boller and John H. George.
2. The section quotes The Atlantic which quotes another source from 1935 in which Long supposedly said he was a fascist (though probably in jest). This indirect quote is misleading, not only because of the ambiguity of Long's answer but also because the Sokolsky article being referred to includes the question itself followed by counter-examples such as Long pushing for Congress and the states to have more power than the federal government. Sokolsky then states, "It is as absurd to call the Kingfish a Fascist as it would be to call him a Communist or a member of the Kuomintang."--"Huey Long" (1935) by George E. Sokolsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattMauler (talk • contribs) 12:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

whether it is absurd to call him fascist or not, you ignore the part under Schlesinger's commentary on Quote Investigator, where it says "In 1935 some people wondered whether Long was the first serious American fascist." FDR thought he was one of the 'most dangerous men in america'. i think he deserves a fascism section. and the anti-fascism quote is controversial, and that controversy could be noted. you also didn't mention that the guy Schlesinger talked to said the quote was "not basically opposed to what he said." the atlantic has an article called him the Trump (aka fascist) of the left and talks about his 'authoritarian tendencies.' whether he was fascist or not, it is clearly a notable part of his history in my opinion. Mbsyl (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The quote by FDR about him being the "most dangerous" is already in the article, as are accusations of him being a demagogue. Are these insufficient? There could be a short section about accusations of fascism, and indeed he was accused of being a fascist. However, the content of the section would have to be significantly different than the version that was just removed. The way the section was worded was misleading as I stated in my comment.
I disagree, for instance, that the "anti-fascist" quote is in any way notable for Long. Tertiary sources like magazines attribute it to him, but reliable secondaries find no evidence he said it. Cantwell didn't even claim that he said something like it, just that, as you say, it is "not basically opposed" to what Long said. If someone else (such as Dennis) phrased it that way, and hundreds of politicians nodded in agreement, is that basic agreement a notable part of their biographies now? We don't even know which version of the quote he may have heard or "basically" agreed with. Was it the version that says it will look like "Americanism"? The one that includes "probably"? The quote should stay out.
In my view, any section we have on accusations of fascism can make clear that he was accused of fascism because of the corruption in his administration and can note his "authoritarian" tendencies (if these can be supported by good sources) but also needs to make clear that he rejected the accusations and that experts who study him also either never describe him that way or dismiss that characterization (corruption =/= fascism).--MattMauler (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
the guy you hold up as an authority said Long was considered by some to be the 'first serious American fascist.' if you think that doesn't indicate a need for a fascism section, then what does? the anti-fascist quote is notable because an 'anti-fascist' movement has arisen that many people do consider to be actually-fascist. it may be one of the first uses of the word 'anti-fascism' and you think it doesn't deserve a little mention? i bet there are 1000s of quotes on wiki that are controversial based on various historians interpretations and findings, but the fact is that if they are covered in RS and important quotes, we should probably show the quote and mention the controversy, no? whether these experts agree that he is fascist or not, the fact that so many of them have an opinion on it indicates that the controversy is an important part of his history, no? perhaps the section could be built up into something more substantial if it wasn't deleted right away??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsyl (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's be clear: Schlesinger said that some wondered if he was the "first serious American fascist." Also note that I clearly said in my comment that a fascism section would be fine. I am not against it. I am, however, against the version of it that was previously posted, which included:
1. a quote that he never said as far as we can tell
2. Long answering a direct question about whether he was fascist by saying "Yeah LOL" (paraphrasing)
3. nothing else.
This is why I say the section was misleading. There is definitely enough info to create a section on accusations of fascism and the discussion of those accusations in RS. Trump (to whom he was compared in the Atlantic article) is actually a good comparison. Trump is not a fascist. Long was not a fascist. Still, both were/are accused of fascism, both are criticized for "authoritarian tendencies," etc. If we were to insert a section on fascism into the article about Donald Trump, there would be plenty of RS to draw on. However, we should not note those accusations (usually in magazines and op-eds) and ignore what qualified experts (historians, political scientists, etc.) have to say about the topic. With Trump there's a BLP issue obviously, and maybe they are different situations, but does this example clarify things? The existence of such a section is not a problem; the problem was the execution.--MattMauler (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
And no, we should not include the quote, for reasons I think are obvious. If you want to push forward with that specifically, you will have to gain consensus on this talk page first, and I will remain a "No" vote.--MattMauler (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
so if a new section has errors, we just delete the whole thing instantly, as opposed to pinging the author about how to improve it? i guess there will be no fascism section, because i don't care to have all of my work deleted any time someone disagrees with me, which is every time that something negative about anti-fascism is added to WP. it is not obvious to me why the quote shouldn't be added. maybe because i think it is much more important than you do. it is a quote, albeit a controversial one, reported in RS and predicting the rise of anti-fascism when there was no such thing. and the quote also predicted that anti-fascism would be fascist (which i and many others would argue, using a secondary definition of fascism, is very true.) Mbsyl (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry that has been your editing experience in the past, but I'm not trying to make this difficult. Together we're following WP:BRD. While the Atlantic source you added may be useful, I saw nothing in the prose of the section worth salvaging, for reasons I've already given. I reverted; now we're discussing.--MattMauler (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I would lean towards supporting adding such a section, but a think it needs a bit more work. Find some more sources and try to make it a bit more balanced. ~ HAL333 05:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Scholars have been very serious in their analysis of Huey Long and "fascism." Google Scholar cites the exact pages and quotes of 2800 articles and books in scholarly sources--see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&q=%22huey+long%22+fascism&btnG= of these n-465 were published 2015 to 2020. (52 of these are from 2020 already -see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=%22huey+long%22+fascism&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27 That means we edititors have a LOT of material to summarize. Rjensen (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Huey Long/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 06:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


I'll give this a thorough review in time. Louisiana political history is not my usual realm, though I do have some experience on editing North Carolina politics articles and ones concerning Southern political corruption. To start, here are my initial comments:

  • The case ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Long. Is there an article for this case?
I couldn't find an article which only covered this case. Is there some kind of Supreme Court database I could search in? ~ HAL333 20:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Not that I know of, just curious as to if the biographies mentioned its formal name. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Irritated by what he saw as immoral gambling in New Orleans, Long sent the National Guard to raid these establishments The type of establishments is implied, but not actually specified. The talk of prostitutes in the next sentence suggests the National Guard was raiding brothels, not merely gambling dens.
 Done
  • Despite a majority of representatives opposing adjournment, the voting board showed 67 ayes and 13 nays. This sparked confusion until it was realized that one pro-Long congressman had rigged the electric voting-machine to turn a "yes" into a "no" and vice versa. This claim comes from a contemporary newspaper source. Most of the modern scholarship on Bloody Monday doesn't seem to stake an actual claim as to whether the machine was rigged or just malfunctioned, though the belief that it had is what caused the fight. Speaker Fournet's official explanation was that the voting board displayed the results of a previous vote due to electrical malfunction.
Do you have any sources I could use to make it more balance? Brinkley just refers to it as a "jammed machine" in a passing mention on p. 25. ~ HAL333 16:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I've cleared this up with information from Hair. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! ~ HAL333 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Impeached on 8 of the 19 charges, It would be helpful to know on what charges he was impeached.
The biographies I have don't mention which charges they were. Tried to find an online source, but no luck. ~ HAL333 00:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
      • No matter, I found them and added them myself. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It would useful to note that the Long opposition bloc in the legislature was known as the "Dynamite Squad".
 Done
  • Ransdell was anti-Long, aligned with the Constitutional League, whom Long mocked as the "Constipational League", and the New Orleans Ring. The Constitutional League and the New Orleans Ring have had no introduction (I'm presuming the former was a civic organization that thought Long was a strongman not keen on legal niceties and the latter was the Regular Democratic Organization).
I expanded the context given on the Old regulars in the 1924 campaign section. I'll get to the NOLA ring next. ~ HAL333 21:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Long critic Sam Irby, who was set to testify on Long's corruption Testify to who? The legislature, a federal court?
 Done The sources just say that he was going to testify to the "anti-Long camp", so local state authorities. I clarified that and also added a note further explaining his connections to Long. ~ HAL333 14:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • He continued his intimidating practice of presiding over the legislature; when congressman voiced their concerns, Long would shout "Shut up!" or "Sit down!" Was he actually presiding in the manner of the Speaker? Or was he just charging in and delivering blustering speeches and bullying legislators?
Added a note. ~ HAL333 16:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • He is also credited with establishing the first penitentiary-rehabilitation program in Louisiana history. Two things here. Firstly, unless this is a likely controversial or disputed claim, there is no reason to say "he is also credited"; just say he created it. Secondly, what is penitentiary-rehabilitation? Is this a program for helping convicts get socially adjusted to society, or is this for renovating prison buildings?
It is somewhat contested. I clarified the second bit. ~ HAL333 14:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • In an upset win over a Robinson-endorsed candidate, Caraway became the first woman elected to the Senate Elected to a full term in the Senate, to be exact. Also, is it explained why Long supported her. Was it merely to snub Robinson?
I added a note and cleared up some of the language. ~ HAL333 19:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Having broken a second time after earlier reconciliation with the Old Regulars and Mayor Walmsley in the fall of 1933, Long inserted himself into the New Orleans mayoral election of 1934. Walmsey is not linked here, and this alludes again to the Regular Democratic Organization which has not been introduced. Also, in what manner did he "insert himself" into this election?
I just removed it. Unfortunately, I don't have White's book (Conincidentally, it was actually the first book I read on Long.) Brinkley doesn't even mention Walmsley. If I'm able to get another biography from the library, I'll try to add this back in the near future. ~ HAL333 16:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Long also passed what he called "a tax on lying" How did this tax work?
 Done
  • They also stripped away the remaining lucrative powers of the mayor of New Orleans, Mayor should be capitalized, since in this context its referring to a specific office. What is lucrative referring to? I have a feeling the Mayor of New Orleans was, at least officially, only supplied a fixed salary, thus they would not have lucrative i.e. "great profit-creating" powers. Unless they received commissions on city transactions or something? Or is this an incorrect word?
I don't really know. That was written by someone before me. My library doesn't have that book either. Should I just remove it? ~ HAL333 14:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
If that is the case, just remove the word "lucrative", as that only makes this ambiguous. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done
  • On what day was Long buried?
 Done

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Images
  • I'm on the edge as to whether this image depicts Caraway. Brinkley says that she sat right by him in the Senate, however, she looks slightly older in contemporary photos. What do you think? ~ HAL333 02:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm personally not convinced that its her. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • There are some whispers in this article about "the Long machine", but little context or elaboration. Political machines are usually informal organizations, but they can be embedded in formal ones, such as civil administration departments or a campaign committee. If the "Long machine" was a true thing in existence that helped engineer the election of his allies and successors in his wake, a cursory history of how it was established, who it involved, and how it worked (networks of courthouse cliques, perhaps?) would be helpful.
 Done The book's are never really clear. Williams just says it was a "one-man operation", which I added. ~ HAL333 17:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I've found some more detail on this and added it in myself. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The Long machine was charged with election fraud and voter intimidation, but the inquiry came up empty, and Overton was seated. This was a Senate inquiry, not a criminal indictment, so "charged" should probably swapped with "accused". Also, what is the "Long machine" referring to in this instance? His gubernatorial administration and its successor allies? Or a formal campaign organization? Or was this more of a conspiracy allegation?
  • I chased the "accused" bit, however, unfortunately I don't have Hair's book. ~ HAL333 16:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Brinkley desrcibed the "Long organization" as the one being investigated. ~ HAL333 02:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • On January 25, 1935, armed Square Dealers took over the courthouse of East Baton Rouge Parish. Long had Governor Allen call out the National Guard, declare martial law, ban public gatherings of two or more persons, and forbid the publication of criticism of state officials. The Square Dealers left the courthouse, but there was a brief armed skirmish at the Baton Rouge Airport. Firstly, did these state orders apply across Louisiana, or just Baton Rouge? Second, were there arrests?
  • I clarified that it was just Baton Rouge and gave more background. Kane says that most just went back to their Standard Oil jobs. ~ HAL333 16:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The Great Depression obviously had a large impact on the trajectory of Long's career, particularly what he did in national politics. He was governor before and after the stock crash of 1929. Is there any info on how he reacted to it as governor or how it impacted his administration?
  • I couldn't find anything specific. ~ HAL333 00:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Why did Cyr break with Long? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done
  • Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294, considerable doubt has been expressed about the reliability of History.com as a source. Thus, citation 177 for the following sentence, By 1934, Long began a reorganization of the state government that reduced the authority of local governments in anti-Long strongholds New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Alexandria. It further gave the governor the power to appoint all state employees should be replaced.
I couldn't find any other sources, so I just removed it. I'll add it back when I can get my hands on a decent book. ~ HAL333 17:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There are also four bridges named in honor of both Long and his successor and supporter, O.K. Allen: the Long-Allen Bridge over the Atchafalaya River between Morgan City and Berwick, one on US Route 84, one on Highway 4, and the Long-Allen Bridge/Texas Street Bridge over the Red River between Downtown Shreveport and Bossier City. The given source for this sentence only supports the claim that one Long-Allen Bridge was named in homage to Long. Additional sources are needed to support the claims about the other bridges.
 Done
  • Long's policies regarding black people are only mentioned once, when he criticized the roll-out of Social Security as discriminatory. Considering the importance of race in Southern politics and considering that some historians that Long was something of an anomaly as a Southern demagogue for not resorting to racist appeals [1], some explanation of his beliefs on race or any other policies specifically involving the matter would be helpful. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I used to have a 3 paragraph section on race before spliting it off into Political views of Huey Long. I'll try to add a section about how he didn't race-bait in one of the election sections. ~ HAL333 12:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done
  • Passing The article is sufficiently well written, well sourced, well structured, and broad enough for GA (might need more detail for FA). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(
)
Long delivering a Senate speech
Long delivering a Senate speech
  • ... that Chief Justice William Howard Taft called Huey Long, later a Governor and Senator from Louisiana, "the most brilliant lawyer who ever practiced before the United States Supreme Court?" (Long (1933), p. 235.)

Created/expanded by HAL333 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC).

Great GA (wonder why you don't say so) on excellent sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and illustrates both hooks well. I prefer ALT1, with Roosevelt better known than Taft, and "dangerous" more curiosity-raising. In the original, I'd say "of" Louisiana (vs. "from"), and in the ALT, I'd add this bit ("of Louisiana). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I like ALT1 more as well. Here's a modified version:

Lead Image

I think it might be better to replace image in the infobox because on the current one his hands are kinda blurred and this is doesn't look well IMO. I would like to suggest to use one of the below images instead:

Симмах (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually really like the current image - I think it captures his essence. His energy and, dare I say, insanity captured in his open mouth and flailing arms, hence the blur. And the second proposed image is way too washed-out. It's also just a variant of an image already used in the article. ~ HAL333 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Right wing or left wing

Toa Nidhiki05, let me explain myself. I personally view Long as left-wing, but I try to avoid stamping my beliefs on articles. The right wing populism in the US category is due. Multiple reputable sources have compared him to Donald Trump. FDR, and many others, compared him to Hitler. George Wallace admired Long. Long's lieutenant Gerald L. K. Smith was literally a fascist. And many of Long's stances, such as his support for the death penalty, were hardly liberal. Call it the horseshoe theory or whatever, but that's the way I see it. ~ HAL333 05:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless he's been specifically a right-wing populist by numerous sources, there is no reason to add it. He's uniformly considered part of the American left's populist tradition, rhetorical claims of fascism aside. Toa Nidhiki05 23:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Page number

Hey Indy beetle, I guess I'm fine if we keep the political machine part. I was in a bit of exclusionist mania and was hacking away at pretty much everything. But is there any way you coud add a page number/range for that citation? ~ HAL333 19:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The version of the book I was looking at didn't have numbered pages, but over the next few days I'll see if I can find a better version. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
So far I've had no joy on finding a copy either online or through my university archive with pagination. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No worries. I'll keep it unless an FA reviewer objects. ~ HAL333 02:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Succession boxes.

The succession boxes were earlier removed this year. Including these seems to be the norm for such politicians, so the lack of them seems to be an exception to the rule.2601:241:300:B610:A:AD38:7387:B168 (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"fascistic"

Ah yes, left wing populism, definitely the basis and a fundamental aspect of fascism. Not. There's your discussion. Word removed. Source the accusation if you don't like it.98.30.43.66 (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

"Left-wing populism"

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.

"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.|)

I propose to leave just the populist wing without specifying left or right populism. 31.135.41.194 (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussions from the archives are relevant here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huey_Long/Archive_1#%22Left%22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Huey_Long/Archive_1#Left-wing_populist
At that point, consensus was achieved in favor of describing him on the left of the political spectrum, based on secondary sources. Consensus can change, I suppose, but it makes sense to start by looking these over. Meanwhile, I have again restored the consensus version of the lead. Thanks for bringing this to the talkpage.--MattMauler (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
What is the consensus? You write that it is unclear what views are below, so why add to the title page that he is a LEFT-wing populist? Wouldn't the best solution be to leave that he is just a populist, and the one who reads the article will decide for himself whether he is left or right.
Also there is an extended version about his views where he says that he is more right than left.
Long was a strident isolationist and political nationalist who opposed American intervention abroad and was a strong supporter of 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 the Philippines. Long argued that 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 to make war with Paraguay over the oil-rich northern Grand Chaco region after the latter had refused to grant favorable leasing terms to the company. (Political views of Huey Long ) HueyLong1893 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I found the article Political views of Huey Long to be both informative and well sourced. In light of the fact that While most say that Louisiana Governor and Senator Huey Long was a populist, little else can be agreed on, I don't think we can call him a leftist in Wikivoice. No, Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, but the statement is a good summary of the sources provided. In light of that, I'm in favor of keeping "left-wing" out of the lead pending a new consensus. Hopefully that will put a stop to the current two-person edit war. Generalrelative (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
That page is not, in fact, a good summary, Generalrelative; the claims simply aren't backed up, especially ones like "little else can be agreed on". The sourcing there is selective; on the actual article here, which is listed as a featured article, Long notes that "Whenever this administration has gone to the left I have voted with it, and whenever it has gone to the right I have voted against it". I'd recommend you also read the previous discussions, whose sources include several books, academic literature, encyclopedias, and reliable news sources, all of which firmly align Long to the political left. What baffles some people is that Long was both a staunch political progressive and an authoritarian, quasi-fascist figure; however, as Gen. Quon noted in a previous discussion, "left" is not a synonym for "good" (or for "bad", for that matter). Long has a complicated legacy, but there's no real debate over which side he aligned with. Toa Nidhiki05 17:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Long also notes what he Nationalist and Tariff Democrat
When asked about his own philosophy, Long simply replied: "Oh, hell, say that I’m sui generis and let it go at that." Writer Robert Penn Warren described him as a "remarkable set of contradictions." HueyLong1893 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
That's a misquote. The source in question says that reference was in regards to his political personality, not his political philosophy. Those are two very different things; having a unique personality and having a unique philosophy aren't the same thing. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and here's the full Warren quote:

That was the only time I ever saw Huey (except perhaps once in a passing car). In one sense I wasn't really much interested in him as a man. 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.

Nothing about politics at all. The quote isn't even confident about Long at all; it's pretty vague and is clearly referring to Long as some sort of symbol or martyr to some. The article never once uses the term "left", "right", "populist", or "conservative". It's about Long the person and his desire for power, something nobody disagrees he wanted. Toa Nidhiki05 17:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Toa. I certainly don't think that what you provided is a representative sample of current scholarship. I'd suggest looking at Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, & the Great Depression by Alan Brinkley for an idea of how I think mainstream scholarship handles this issue. See in particular pages 44 and 232. Generalrelative (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd hardly argue a single book from 1982 is the best summary of "modern scholarship", especially in contrast to the other more numerous (and more modern sources) presented above. Page 232 doesn't seem to have anything relevant to Long himself; I can't find page 44 here because it's not public. That's not a disqualifier for reliability, of course, it just means I can't make a judgement on it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Re-issued in 2011 and by a respected historian (holder of a named chair at Columbia). That kind of source means a lot more than a pile of journalism or whatever they choose to host on Britannica.com. It's not as though there is a ton of work being done about Long. In any case, I don't have more time for this. You've got my 2¢. I hope it's helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I mean, it would be more helpful if I could actually read the source you presented to get an idea of what you are asserting exactly. You told me to check page 44, and I can't; I'm more than happy to consider your viewpoint here, but I can't really do that without accessing the source. I understand if you're unwilling or unable to do so, however. Cheers, Toa Nidhiki05 18:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

1

2

3

4

5

6

Pinging 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. DN (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. DN (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. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

HueyLong1893, feel free to discuss your reasoning here. I know you’ve participated in at least one past discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 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 isolationist and political nationalist who opposed American intervention abroad and was a strong supporter of 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 the Philippines. Long argued that 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 to make war with Paraguay over the oil-rich northern Grand Chaco region after the latter had refused to grant favorable leasing terms to the company. ( Political views of Huey Long ) 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
"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. 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] 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. Toa Nidhiki05 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. 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. Toa Nidhiki05 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. HueyLong1893 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
That's not a compromise. Toa Nidhiki05 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 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? Toa Nidhiki05 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, HueyLong1893 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Here's some additional resources:
Long is squarely identified with the left - specifically, progressivism and left-wing populism. There's no real debate on the matter. Toa Nidhiki05 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.html#here
https://amgreatness.com/2021/05/02/the-long-shot/ HueyLong1893 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
…are you seriously citing “American Greatness”, a pro-Trump trash site, as a reliable source? Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
are you seriously citing "National Review", a neocon trash site, as a reliable source? HueyLong1893 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
National Review is generally regarded as at least somewhat reliable. Not so for “American Greatness”. Toa Nidhiki05 16:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually, neither of these sources are reliable. Yikes. Toa Nidhiki05 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. HueyLong1893 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You literally cited a pro-Trump crock website and a literal white nationalist newsletter. Toa Nidhiki05 16:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You literally cited a pro-Neocon andcrock website and a literal Free-Market Fundamental newsletter HueyLong1893 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Free-Market Fundamentalist* 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? Toa Nidhiki05 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 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 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." 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. 77.222.107.254 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've opened up a discussion at AN/I about this. Tagging Generalrelative since they just responded here. Toa Nidhiki05 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). 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. Toa Nidhiki05 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 "impact of his career". The "Sui generis" quote isn't about his political philosophy but his political personality. Toa Nidhiki05 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 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. 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 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. 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. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I think 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. DN (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. 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, Darknipples. If you're willing to start one, that would presumably resolve the issue. Toa Nidhiki05 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. DN (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, I've compiled a list. I'll post below. Toa Nidhiki05 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Any thoughts on including editors at Political views of Huey Long et al? DN (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't hold that page in high regard at all, but sure? Toa Nidhiki05 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: Should Long be described as "left-wing" in the article lead? 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. Toa Nidhiki05 18:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

A slew of reliable sources

Just some sources I've found from maybe 30 minutes of research. Toa Nidhiki05 18:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Also reliable sources
Gerald L.K. Smith closer Huey supporter about Huey views Gerald L K Smith called Huey as Conservative 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. Toa Nidhiki05 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 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?...DN (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. Toa Nidhiki05 02:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
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. DN (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Just as a note, Huey has been indefinitely blocked. Toa Nidhiki05 03:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It would be fine to phrase the RfC question as:

Should the lead describe Long as 1) "a left-wing populist", 2) simply "a populist", or 3) neither?

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. 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. 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. DN (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 [3]. 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. DN (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCBEFORE:

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, Generalrelative (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Toa Nidhiki05 05:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Point taken, I'm just dealing with a bit of talk-page whiplash at the moment...DN (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for your work, DN. Generalrelative (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huey_Long/Archive_1&oldid=1212985950"