Talk:William Borah

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

message: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided" ? If so, we need a reference to it. Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great research work - this is the kind of thing Wikipedia needs more of. Korny O'Near (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Borah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322090032/http://www.electricprint.com/academic/department/AandL/AAS/ANNOUNCE/vra/lynch/congress/congress1.htm to http://www.electricprint.com/academic/department/AandL/AAS/ANNOUNCE/vra/lynch/congress/congress1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on William Borah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051125232034/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haywood/HAY_BBOR.HTM to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haywood/HAY_BBOR.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: William Borah was apparently the main character in a February 1963 episode of Death Valley Days. This information was added to the article in the last few days, but was then removed twice by an editor, who first said "I really don't think a fictionalized Borah is worth including" and then "we do not have "In popular culture" or trivia sections in FAs." I don't know what this means - there's no shortage of featured articles that contain an "In popular culture", "In fiction", etc. section, and some subjects of featured articles even have a separate article just for their cultural mentions/depictions. So I don't see any reason why this TV episode shouldn't get the same treatment. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Howis this significant to the reader wishing to learn about Borah, not a fictionalization of him? There's also WP: Citing IMDb to deal with ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's as significant as any of those other cultural depictions in the sections and pages I linked to. The episode is not being cited as a reference, so its veracity is to some extent irrelevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because a real person appears as a fictional character in a TV show, that does not mean it must be listed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of that essay, but surely the fact that so many articles, let alone featured articles, contain this kind of information means that the consensus view is that there's nothing wrong with pop culture references? At the very least, it negates one of your main rationales for removing this information. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect most of them did not pass FAC in that form, but were added later.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, if you don't like citing IMDb, there's a short snippet about that same episode on the TV Guide website. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Support the view that it's rather of minor interest, - at least for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're referring to Wikipedia essays, these objections all seem to be of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety, as opposed to anything substantial (no offense). Korny O'Near (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that it's not very significant to Borah. Some fictional depictions shape how we view a person. This just seems obscure.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that means. Surely some people who saw that episode had their view of Borah shaped by it? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't known. I wasn't born yet. Could that be shown? Was there discussion of the episode anywhere, beyond the brief blurb in TV Guide?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an inordinately high standard of proof. If every fact here had to be not only verified, but its importance verified, this encyclopedia would be more or less empty. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a high standard for a FA to show that something is more than trivia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what you mean by "show". I think the fact that it was a full episode of a popular network TV show is more than enough indication of importance. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

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

text: That would be the work needed to meet the consensus found in this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two sources found for this TV episode establish both the verifiability and significance of it for inclusion in this article. Certainly, the episode seems to fit all the criteria for inclusion listed in the WP:POPCULTURE essay. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I think you need to show that, rather than simply asserting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Show what - significance? Can you point to actual established criteria of significance of "in popular culture" entries that are not yet met by this one? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

text: For one thing, because it was not in Borah's lifetime and no secondary source says, to my knowledge, that it has affected his historical reputation. One episode is very trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the person's lifetime makes it less important? And a 30-minute episode of a TV show is trivial? Where are you getting these views? They don't seem to match anything in WP:POPCULTURE. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We are arguing in circles, that is why I break off commenting. There is no obligation to argue with you forever, and ceasing to do so does not leave you as the last person standing. I disagree with the addition, and I have stated my reasons at considerable length.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel like we're arguing in circles at all. You've stated various reasons, I've shown some of them to be in error, and for the remaining ones I've asked you whether they're based on any guidelines or just your personal opinion, and so far you've refused to answer. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Except we've discussed policy and guidelines above.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by that - the only guidelines you've brought up are WP:Citing IMDb (no longer relevant here) and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that it is time for both of us to step back and allow oxygen in the room for other voices to be heard.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been hoping since the beginning to hear from others as well. Still, feel free to respond to my questions if you want. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  An "In popular culture" section 

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

message: In spite of the quality of this article, Borah's views on women's suffrage are entirely absent.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/People/Women/Part3_TheLastTrench.htm
This source above does a good job at discussing it, should we add a new section for it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be several sources on this. I’ll write something. Give me a few days.—Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this reply is late, but thanks for adding it. :D PoliticallyPassionateGamer (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borah's views on women's suffrage 

message: There has been so much interest in the 14th Amendment, and I came across this article that said that in 1937 Senator Borah proposed an Amendment. Philadelphia Inquirer article states that one of the changes in Amendment would have eliminated penalties against those that supported the Confederacy.
I don't really know enough about Senator Borah to include this addition to his wikipedia article, but I thought someone else could review it and integrate it because I am sure it would be of interest.￼ Lrgriffin3 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it apparently went nowhere, I suspect there's nothing we can say. Interesting he took out the Insurrection Clause ... since the youngest people subject to it would be well in their nineties by then, I guess he thought it had no further applicability. Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  1936 Presidential Campaign and Final Years - Proposed Substitute Amendment to the 14th Amendment