# Talk:William Goebel

This article links to the page about Kentucky's current capitol building, but it wasn't built until the 1920's.  Goebel was shot after crossing Broadway and walking toward the old capitol building.

The article says the man was assinated the day before he was sworn in, then goes on to say he remains the only state governor in the United States to be assassinated while in office. Am i correct that if he was not sworn in, he didn't take office?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.152.164 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 

The image of Mr Goebel need a fair use rationale before I can confirm GA Status. All other targets are met no problem. BigHairRef | Talk 13:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in changing the article's status. Was an oversight on my behalf. BigHairRef | Talk 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's enough bias on Wikipedia without this POV "Democrat martyr" featured article. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 18:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's best to give specifics if you want to see something changed. Brutannica 19:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

First, how on earth did this get to be a featured article with so little discussion on its talk page? I've never seen such a thing. Second, does anyone know he pronounced his name? Some German-Americans pronounce the "oe" like "oh" (i.e. "Goebel" rhymes with "noble"), while others pronounce "oe" like "ay" (i.e. "Goebel" is pronounced "gable"). —Angr/talk 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For the first question, it got featured with so little discussion because I wrote most of it by myself. I can't answer the second question definitively, but being from Kentucky, I've always heard it pronounced like the "noble." Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty of discussion on the FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Goebel. --W.marsh 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Though I wrote the FA Irish phonology pretty much single-handedly too, but Talk:Irish phonology saw at least a little action! Not saying it's a bad thing, I was just really startled! :-) —Angr/talk 07:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither of these possible ways of pronouncing Goebel appears to be the way that it would be pronounced by German-speakers in Germany. Can any German language specialists expand on this? (66.162.249.170 (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)) 

How could there have been a civil war inside a state? Wouldn't federal authorities have federalized the National Guard or the similar organization of the time or stepped in somehow? Not to mention, what forces would've been involved in this civil war?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.205.147 (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 

What federal authorities would or would not have done will always be an exercise in speculation at best, but the fact is citizens who supported Goebel and citizens who supported Taylor both had armed themselves. Formal military units aren't necessary for a civil war. Multiple reliable sources say a civil war in the state was possible. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The National Guard was not organised until some years later; 1917, if I remember rightly.  Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Acdixon for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I read this quote in the January 1, 1900 edition of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer [1] by General P. Watt Hardin: "If it [Kentucky] is to be regained we must act now, act promptly and act decisively. We must act so as to make clear that Goebelism is not democracy."
My brief investigation found that Goebelism of course refers to William Goebel, and more specifically its appearance in this quote and by other contemporary opponents seems to disparage the election law as a coup. Can anyone shed some light on Goebelism in the article? —Mrwojo (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mrwojo: Although it might be a stretch to call it a coup – especially since the Goebel law itself failed Goebel when he sought the governorship in 1899, and he had to be bailed out by a highly partisan General Assembly. Still, the law was widely recognized as a naked manifestation of Goebel's political ambition and was a sore spot even among some in his own party, which was how John Y. Brown was nominated by a dissident Democratic faction in the 1899 election. Political bossism was rampant in Kentucky during this time, and Goebelism was just Goebel's particular flavor of it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This article needs a bit of work to maintain its FA status, since it currently features a number of tags that should be fixed. Checking some of the documents tagged as page needed, we can see that William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath is a 149-page document, The First New Dealer, William Goebel: His Origin, Ambitions, Achievements, His Assassination, Loss to the State and Nation, the Story of a Great Crime is is a 330-pages book and the chapter "Goebel's Campaign for Railroad Regulation, 1888–1900" is 18-pages long. The citations in the article should be re-worked so they present smaller page ranges, to help verification. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Goebel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk · contribs) 21:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello there again! I‘ll be taking this one. I hope to complete this review over the next few days (hopefully less time than he was in office) so stay tuned. Looking forward to reading more about Mr Goebel! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @ExcellentWheatFarmer – Just so you know, this was a featured article before June 2021, when it was delisted because books didn't had page numbers! I fixed all that, and think that it is ready for GA review. Also, this is my attempt to save this featured topic.  – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed! Most the sourcing issues seem to have been fixed, but I don't own/have access to most of the books cited, so it'd be appreciated if you could do a small spot-check of them all (aside from Harrison 2004), just to make sure it's correct.
Alright @Kavyansh.Singh, I'm happy to pass this article now. Any other thoughts? ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Thanks! As for the references, are you fine with them or do I need to provide a brief spot check detail here. I'll provide you with the text of the sources for you to compare it with article's text. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The details of the spot check would be appreciated! That way you can refer back to them as evidence for the FTN. Thanks! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


### General Comments
Earwig's copyvio detector checks out fine.
The page seems mostly stable, with no edit wars or controversies on either the page itself or the talk.
Images are all fair use and well used. They even all have alt-text - good job!


### Lede
Infobox seems fine.
"Goebel was born to Wilhelm and Augusta (Groenkle) Goebel" Clarify what Groenkle means.
Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"He studied at the Hollingsworth Business College and became an apprentice in John W. Stevenson's law firm." What year(s) did he do this?
Direct year is not specified by the sources, though "mid 1870s" is mentioned ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"While Goebel lacked the social qualities common to politicians, various authors referred to him as an intellectual man." What social qualities?
Specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"In 1895, Goebel engaged in what many observers considered to be a duel with John Lawrence Sanford, a former Confederate general staff officer turned cashier." -> "In 1895, Goebel engaged in a duel with John Lawrence Sanford, a former Confederate general staff officer turned cashier."
Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"Sanford's died; Goebel pleaded self-defense and was acquitted." -> "Sanford was killed; Goebel pleaded self-defense and was acquitted."
Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"During the 1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election, Goebel divided his party with his political tactics at a time when Kentucky Republicans were gaining strength, having elected the party's first governor four years previously." What political tactics?
Specified in brief. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


### Heritage and career
Again, clarification of Groenkle would go well here, if not already in the lede.
Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"William attended school in Covington" Replace William with Goebel
Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


### Kentucky Senate
For Ref #6, what page number?
Well, Ref#6 is a biography of Goebel published in print in 1999 (online in 2000). As I am citing the online version, no page number is specified at the web page (which requires subscription)
Ah, understood.


### Duel with John Sanford
Break this section up into two paragraphs.
Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


### Goebel election law
"Kentucky Democrats, who controlled the General Assembly, believed that county election commissioners had been unjust in selecting local election officials, and which had unfairly contributed to the election of Republican governor William O. Bradley in 1895." This could be reworded to be more neutral.
Sure; tried. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


### Gubernatorial election of 1899
Replace "electrified".
Well, it seems to me that this is not an extraneous word. This speech was practically the biggest reason why Bryan won the convention, as a dark-horse candidate. Moreover, 'electrified' has been used in articles like Cross of Gold speech (an FA) and Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign (GA, now FAC!)
That's fair enough.
"This put Stone's supporters in a difficult position. They were forced to choose between Hardin, who was seen as a pawn of the railroads, or Goebel. " Merge these sentences.
Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
"three hand-picked Goebel Democrats" -> "three hand-picked pro-Goebel Democrats"
Sure; done; better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


### Spot checks
I randomly have selected these 7 references, and have provided the source's text, as well as the text of the article.

@ExcellentWheatFarmer – Are the spot-checks fine. Anything else? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Nope, it all looks good. Great job! ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I realize this is an extremely pedantic question, but is it proper to say he was "assassinated while in office", as we do in the lede? He wasn't in office yet when he was shot, though he did die of his wounds after being sworn in. I guess there could be an argument that, since Taylor was ruled to have been elected improperly, Goebel had been legally governor since the previous term ended, but that's not how our list of Kentucky governors article treats it. --Jfruh (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jfruh: No, it's not pedantic. It's just a very difficult situation to describe concisely, and it's been through a few iterations already. I guess the counterpoint is, "when is it considered an assassination?" If Goebel had recovered, he wouldn't have been considered "assassinated". He's only considered assassinated because he died, and because he was in office when he died, that means he was in office when he was assassinated. That's just a devil's advocate argument; I'm not necessarily defending the current wording. But if we drop "while in office", then it becomes inaccurate because, for example, President William McKinley was a state governor who was assassinated, but he was not assassinated while holding that office. It's just a convoluted mess. I'm open to suggestions. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This reference to a duel seems to be a form of bitherism, trying to falsely create a disqualification by semantical smoke and mirrors.  Everyone knows how a duel works - there is a loose procedure.  With concealed weapons, neither side could be sure the other side is even armed.  It was a foiled attempt at murder, plain and simple. 217.180.201.232 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

While I probably wouldn't disagree with you, the scholarly sources discuss the event relative to the Kentucky Constitution's prohibition on dueling. Our job is to reflect what the sources say. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)