# Talk:Robert M. La Follette

This notes that he was vegetarian. This may or may not be relevant but I figure I should note it.

"La Follette returned to Wisconsin, where he served as a judge. In 1891, he refused a bribe offered by a powerful Wisconsin Republican."
Wasn't it LaFollette's brother that was the judge, not Bob himself?

Right.  This entry needs serious work.  I've started on it, but it needs more.
This is also something from page 454 of McGraw Hill's "U.S. A Narrative History Volume 2: From 1865. Seventh Edition." -- "When a Republican boss offered him a bribe in a railroad case, La Follette pledged to break 'the power of this corrupt influence.' In 1900 he won the governorship of Wisconsin as an uncommonly independent Republican."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.73.23.2 (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC) 

if i am correct, didnt he die on the 18 and not the 20th?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheevedw (talk • contribs) 02:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 

how the hell do you pronounce his name--Jaysscholar 22:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

La Fie Ette Pimpalicious 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not correct, it's not Lafayette, it is La Follette, La Fall Ette. Pm06420 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That La Follette is WI's favorite son is hardly controversial.  In WI politics, the other biggies were Proxmire, Belle Case La Follette, Father Groppi, Phil and Robert La Follette Jr., Dodge (as in, get out of Dodge), Randall, and Vilas.  Oh, and McCarthy.  Hands down (do a google) you'll find Fighting Bob is the one. - Manski

wasn't it "battling bob"?
>> No.  Where did you get that?  Definitely Fighting Bob.
your both wrong, he was nicknamed the father of the progressive era.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.9.231 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 
Page 454 of McGraw Hill's "U.S. A Narrative History Volume 2: From 1865. Seventh Edition" calls him "Battle Bob" La Follette. I don't know where they got that from though.

This article would benefit from making La Follette's stands on Prohibition and the other constitutional amendments more explicit.  Boris B 05:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, an article about the playwright George Middleton will have to be started. George Middleton was married to Fola La Follette and was prominent in his own right. I am working on some notes at home for a possible article. Thank you-RFD 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking at some of the materials involving the playwright George Middleton, I put a request in for an article. There were lots of plays,other materials, George Middleton wrote and produced. I do know I am not very knowledgable about this type of subject. Thank you-RFD 13:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I got the article about George Middleton (playwright) started and it took lots of research and work and overcoming some fears on my part.ThanksRFD 17:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence about Chester La Follette and the Senator's portrait in the US Capitol needs to be move to the paragraph about Senator La Follette being honored as one of the outstanding senators in 1957. The portrait was commissioned for that event. Therefore the 2 items are related and should not be separated.Again my thanksRFD 15:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see clear precise citations for the sources of the quotes that appear in this article.  I have seen them various places around the internet, possibly even stitched together in different ways.  I would like to see them in their original context, but do not know where to begin looking. -- 136.159.61.8 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who put up a "Weasel Words" banner, but that's not appropriate. What IS appropriate is some sort of indicator that this article is not properly footnoted. It's fine to use one source multiple times, but page numbers really do need to be provided for each fact lifted. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says:
> He graduated [from university] in 1879.
> La Follette attended law school briefly and passed the bar in 1880.
> Soon after obtaining his law degree...
My question is this: did he actually graduate from law school? If so, how long was the programme in those days? Or was it possible in Wisconsin, as in other places, to sit the bar exam on the basis of knowledge gained otherwise, e.g., by reading independently and/or studying with a qualified attorney?
The time-frame just seems somewhat compressed. And, if he didn't graduate from law school, then, admitted to the bar or not, he can't be said to have had a law degree.HenryLarsen (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wisconsin Historical Society article and the Congressional Biography said he read the law and then was admitted to the bar. This happen after he graduated from college. In the 19th century you studied the law with a lawyer and then appear before some lawyers to take an exam. Thank you-RFD (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I just look at Senator La Follette's Autobiobraphy. On pg, 4 La Follette read the law with a lawyer last name Bashford and also spent time at law school for 5 months and then was admitted to the bar-Thank you-RFD (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The intro says that the opposed US entry in the League of Nations, but there's not another word about it. I would like to know why. Does anyone know? —75.4.225.234 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Robert M. La Follette Sr.. 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/20070630182008/http://www.edloretto.net/7barticles/Robert%20LaFollette.pdf to http://www.edloretto.net/7barticles/Robert%20LaFollette.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060103231115/http://www.fightingbob.com/aboutbob.cfm to http://www.fightingbob.com/aboutbob.cfm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060202174947/http://fightingbob.com/ to http://www.fightingbob.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert M. La Follette/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article as part of the July 2021 good article nominations backlog drive! Any section that I've marked with a  Working tag means that I haven't finished leaving comments there, but you're free to begin making changes as soon as you see them! Kncny11 (shoot) 17:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lede
Per WP:LEADCITE, ledes don't normally have citations, but direct quotes should be linked, particularly the one about being "the most celebrated leader in Wisconsin history".


### Early life
Comma after "in 1862"
Specify that he graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree
Also specify that the student paper was called the University Press


### Early political career
WL district attorney
Pipe "embezzled" to embezzlement
Change the pipe on Scandinavian to Nordic and Scandinavian Americans
"bribed some" → "bribed certain"
Mention the name of the man he defeated in 1900


### Governor of Wisconsin
"when he announced that he would resign as governor" → "when he announced his resignation"
WL James O. Davidson and Irvine Lenroot


### Senator
#### Roosevelt administration
Replace parentheses with commas in second sentence
"sixteen consecutive" → "16 consecutive" per MOS:NUMBERS


#### Taft administration
"senators except" → "senators except for"
Switch the "In consultation with..." and "in January 1911" clauses
""and Wendell Phillips."" → ""and Wendell Phillips"." per MOS:LQ
Mention when exactly the autobiography came out, so we can understand how that might have affected the presidential election
"would undergo surgery" → "required surgery"


#### Wilson administration
The bit about foreign policy seems tacked on in its current state; if possible, try to expand and split into a different paragraph
Replace hyphen with en dash for the 373–50 vote
Comma after "After the U.S. declared war"
"during 1917 and 1918" → "throughout this period"
""struggling to establish an industrial democracy."" → ""struggling to establish an industrial democracy"." per MOS:LQ


#### Harding administration
"La Follette retained influence in Wisconsin after the war" (or some such time qualifier)
Need a reference for the death date of Harding and subsequent succession by Coolidge
The last paragraph is a hell of a run-on sentence


### 1924 Presidential campaign
No dash in African Americans
Comma after "stating that,"
WL Louis Brandeis and associate justice, and specify that it was SCOTUS, not, say, the WI Supreme Court


### Death
Perhaps worth mentioning that the heart disease was complicated by bronchitis and pneumonia
WL to Forest Hill Cemetery (Madison, Wisconsin)
Also mention that he was still in office at the time of his death


### Legacy
Either WL Philip and Robert in the first sentence, or don't mention their names until later
""the most celebrated figure in Wisconsin history."" → ""the most celebrated figure in Wisconsin history"." per MOS:LQ


### Memorials
Everything after the painting in the Senate is currently unreferenced


### References
There is currently an awkward split on the Bibliography side, where at first glance it looks like there are no specialty studies. It might be preferable to use column tags rather than reflist tags here
On that note, the bibliography section should probably be called "Further reading", as "Bibliography" is usually used for what you have listed as "Works cited"


### General comments
Broadness, focus, neutrality, and stability all shake out
Pictures are available for use and are relevant to the article
Mention somewhere in the body how he came by the nickname "Fighting Bob"
Include the years in which he was governor and senator in the headers for those respective sections
Earwig score looks good at 32.9%, with the higher ones coming from direct, attributed quotes. I also spot checked some of the offline sources.
Great work so far! Mostly just small MOS things and a few silly mistakes that happen with an article of this length. Putting on hold now, and let me know if you have any questions! Kncny11 (shoot) 19:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No changes made to article in over a week. Only activity from user since April has been two RfA votes. Closing this one as a fail, unfortunately. — GhostRiver 01:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert M. La Follette/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

For the past couple of months, since June 15 when an IP edit extensively vandalized the page, removed an entire section on a speech La Follette gave during his 1912 campaign, as well as adding odd adjectives into the article. Some examples, the words added in brackets, include "when he [validly] opposed..." "La Follette in a debate before the Senate [bravely] said..." and so on.

This user then engaged in an edit war from August 23rd to August 24th, when @ToBeFree protected the page to end it. The vandalizing user at this time used several IP addresses, and altered the page 11 times in that two day period.

Since then, the page has been vandalized again. A new user, called @TheHistorianEditor, created an account on September 11, and immediately started asking permission to vandalize the page without discussion again. This new account made enough edits in the course of a few days to circumvent the protected status of the page, and on September 15 made almost the exact same edits as the multi-IP vandalizing user had done. This is despite the user lying on @ToBeFree's user talk page where he had immediately gone to on September 11 to ask to change the La Follette article. The user asserted "From what I see, I am doing the people on the talk page a favor my making this change" despite there being no topic opened on this page since 2021.

I do not have enough edits under my belt to revert these changes this user is making, but I hope someone sees this who does. And hopefully there is some way to further protect this page from continued vandalization and sockpuppet accounts. Senator Aldrich (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Context. Thanks for the ping and for starting this discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
As a heads up, I tried reverting these edits once and they were immediately restored. It's unclear how much they classify as vandalism vs. just violating WP:NPOV and not sourcing content. It's important to maintain encyclopedic tone here. I'd love to actually discuss the concerns to the page and possible improvements that can be made without violating Wikipedia policies—some of the language wrapped in large scale edits may actually be better / more encyclopedic/more aligned with sourcingz ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 19:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Whatever. Complain all you want about reverting the edits. I am keeping an eye on this Wikipedia page, so I can maintain this factual and historically true information. I keep your positive about the stuff with your favorite pages, so don't mess with mine. Trying to revert the edits will not help and will make things worse. For Pete's sake, just leave this page alone. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I would entreat you to discuss this rather than keep reverting the version. You are going to break the three revert rule which will mean you're edit warring again. Senator Aldrich (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
This user has engaged in sock puppetry through various IP accounts and edit warring before this, which is what forced the page onto protected status. These edits are destructive to the page and are attempting to obfuscate a historical fact about his 1912 campaign, as this user has said multiple times, simply because it doesn't lionize the subject of the article. This user is clearly uninterested in discussing the issue either, given he attempted to delete this discussion thread.
His characterization of the Thelen source is entirely baseless. The book is available on the internet archive, and aligns with the content that was previously on this page.
The reason the edits were immediately restored is because this user has continually engaged in edit warring since June 15 and continues to vandalize the page any time someone tries to fix the damage he's done. His version is not the status quo.
The discussion of whether the speech La Follette gave should be characterized as 'divisive' or 'disastrous' is a legitimate one. I would argue disastrous is more descriptive, as the speech severely harmed his campaign, and alienated many of his allies. Senator Aldrich (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Adminstrator note I restored the stable version of this article to the state it was in prior to the edit warring and have fully protected the article for a week. Use dispute resolution to discuss the content; @TheHistorianEditor: if you do not get consensus for your desired changes you cannot restore them. -- Ponyobons mots 21:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
But I just really love him and want to describe him more positively. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Please keep my version, I will be so happy. I want this page to respect and honor him. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
This user is seemingly also engaged in an edit war on the Hannaford supermarket page, the history of that page linked here. It's the same pattern of vandalism as on this page, where a user with multiple sock-puppet IP address edits is attempting to remove an entire paragraph from the article in the name of being "positive", without discussion, with the edit war being taken up by "TheHistorianEditor" in the most recent revisions.
Obviously the dispute on that article isn't an issue here, but it is reflective of a pattern of behavior. Senator Aldrich (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Change "Congressman Henry Cooper" to "Congressman Henry Cooper"
Just a link. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)