Talk:Huey Long

message: Since this seems to be a point of contention - is there any wording here that might please everyone? I am find with referring to him as "fascistic" because it's clearly in a somewhat rhetorical sense, rather than an actual political platform of his. But would some alternative wording - like, say, "authoritarian", "despotic", or "dictatorial" - get the same point across? I think there's a way to get his leadership and governing style across that could satisfy most people. Toa Nidhiki05 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I find “fascistic” problematical, as historians who've analyzed calling Long a fascist (including Williams, p. 15-16, and Brinkley, p. 23) have ultimately rejected labeling him as such. “Dictatorial” seems to get the intended meaning across without promoting unnecessary confusion. SDYB-WNRTC (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Toa, I don't see the description "dictatorial" used in sources, as opposed to "fascistic". As far as the comment above, this doesn't necessarily eliminate confusion for everyone, and may have the opposite effect. Unless most sources say dictatorial etc...we should adhere to WP:RS. Please self-revert. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses "dictator" or "dictatorship" 7 times compared to only 3 for fascism or fascist. Toa Nidhiki05 18:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to go too far off topic, but clearly most uninvolved editors such as myself wouldn't bother to look through every single source in the article to count each one, so why feign indifference only to move the goal post? Your edit summary reads (). If you don't wish it to be reverted why would you say that, or was it only directed at certain editors other than myself? DN (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn’t feign indifference. I made the edit to throw out an idea and spur discussion, which had appeared to. I don’t actually care much whether it calls him fascistic or not, I’d just prefer some kind of consensus to point to when this inevitably comes up again. Toa Nidhiki05 00:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Have a peaceful evening. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

text: To help clarify, I was mainly looking at the lead, and I did not see use of the term "dictatorial" in it. I still don't see it until later in the body, in the Louisiana Governorship section 1928-1932, which only gives a quote, which I didn't take as a de-facto academic consensus "." (edit:see my reply to HAL...DN (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Oh, now I see it, at the bottom of the third paragraph "" Welp, I think HAL333 is doing much better without us XD. DN (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a broad consensus that Huey Long was indeed a left-wing populist. Many more historians designate him as such than as "right-wing" or "fascist". The term "fascistic" is problematic and denotes a right-wing or negative tone. Including it in the lead is against WP:NPOV guidelines. This is quite clear to most individuals. Other than the user who has used a white nationalist website as a source for their personal opinions regarding Long, those who are arguing for this term to be included have yet to explain their misguided rationale. I'm with  and several others on this one. Aquabluetesla 20:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it violates NPOV to say that critics called him a fascist. It's not in Wikipedia's voice. ~ HAL333 21:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

text: You say you are with TOA and "several others". Who, specifically, are you referring to in those terms, and why should anyone care? DN (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the edit history of the article, I will not be explaining this in layman's terms for you. Dictatorial is much more accurate to be listed in the lead. "Fascistic" is significantly misleading. Many more would say he’s "dictatorial" than "fascistic". Far fewer would say he was "fascistic". Will change to reflect consensus of majority. The word "dictatorial" being restated later in the lead is not a viable reason for the term "fascistic" to be used. Aquabluetesla 21:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So, since you side-stepped my question, I will ponder a guess that your plan seems to be, to ping ALL the involved editors in this discussion and hold an RfC, or dispute resolution, or something to that effect? Are you sure other editors won't see that as a waste of time? DN (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

text: , as it says on the top of the talk page, "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting." I will not be providing any more sources, for there are an abundant amount of sources on this talk page regarding this fact. Hearsay from prominent and notable individuals is not a reason for it to be reflected as "fascistic". That is not from the actual Louisianian government, rather, it is a personal website of the State's Republican secretary of state and is partisan. Those quotes are not adequate rationale for the article’s present state as of your revert. Ignorance as to WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL specifically because there is no viable proof Long ever self-identified as a fascist and maybe the only reliable source that designates him as this, is one on JSTOR, doesn't make it meet the guidelines. Aquabluetesla 22:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Atlantic is hearsay? Academic journals are hearsay? And I've looked in the archives, and there is no presentation of sources that states that Long has been called "dictatorial" more often than "fascistic". If you can provide sources, I'm all ears. ~ HAL333 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The one that states "accusation[s]"? Try dictator. The word should be changed to "authoritarian", "despotic", or "dictatorial". Aquabluetesla 01:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with HAL on this. WE can RfC or take it to dispute resolution. There's no consensus for change so, we should stick with it's original form for now. DN (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking this to dispute or RfC seems like a waste to me. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I think it's abundantly clear the inclusion is controversial, but it's also WP:STATUSQUO and has been in the lead on and off for a long time now. Barring some sort of consensus to remove, it should stay. Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling this "longstanding" is not accurate in this case, as it has been changed numerous times, as is clearly evident in the edit history of the article. WP:STATUSQUO is an unofficial essay and is against the  official guidelines/policies  of WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL. I personally have an essay of WP:DGAF regarding this prior stated reason. Aquabluetesla17:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always been reverted back as well. If a solid case is made to change it I am all ears, but I'm not the only one that doesn't see why it's use is improper or unsupported. DN (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is important to note, and clear to me, who may be doing most of the reverting as well. An unrefuted case has been made and the edit is not unsupported or improper. It is okay with me if someone switches the words around with "authoritarian", "despotic", or "dictatorial", but "fascistic" is inaccurate in this case. Aquabluetesla 17:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. While I don't think he ever self-identified as a fascist (btw who would?), there is sufficient RS IMO that shows his critics often used that term to describe him. If you prefer we use "his critics referred to him as" as a qualifier, I might not object to it. DN (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is inaccurate, "his critics referred to him as" would be misleading as not very many regard him as a "fascist". Why do a few notable people's opinion regarding Long need to be given WP:UNDUE weight on his article? This is not what is done for former presidents. He was definitely a left-wing populist with some authoritarian tendencies, not at all a "fascist". Aquabluetesla 17:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you admit that there is RS to support it, but "not enough" in your opinion. That is where we are. If you can convince the others to make the change I might choose in favor of consensus, but for now please observe WP:STATUSQUO. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

text: STOP EDIT WARRING...please...DN (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been in the lead since at least January of 2021 but you don't consider that as "longstanding" in your opinion? DN (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  has already refuted your opinions about the cited sources, it honestly seems like you just don't care and will continue to edit war no matter what. DN (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, indeed, it is not a "longstandingedit". It has been removed several times, it's not like it has remained on the article for that long without being removed. See the edit history. No, he did not refute that the guidelines/policies are official. If changing the title "is a no-no", I am unaware of whatever you’re referring to. That title was not written with neutrality in mind. What does "Cheers" mean in your context? I personally don't use that word, possibly due to being an American (excluding Belize). Aquabluetesla 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing section titles (especially other people's edits DN (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fascistic" 

message: Aqua keeps ignoring this portion in the lead ("Please do not remove "facistic demagogue": discuss it on the talk page.-->) and changing a longstanding edit without trying to gain consensus. DN (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's abundantly clear the inclusion is controversial, but it's also WP:STATUSQUO and has been in the lead on and off for a long time now. Barring some sort of consensus to remove, it should stay. Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling this "longstanding" is not accurate in this case, as it has been changed numerous times, as is clearly evident in the edit history of the article. WP:STATUSQUO is an unofficial essay and is against the  official guidelines/policies  of WP:NPOV and MOS:LABEL. I personally have an essay of WP:DGAF regarding this prior stated reason. Aquabluetesla17:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It has always been reverted back as well. If a solid case is made to change it I am all ears, but I'm not the only one that doesn't see why it's use is improper or unsupported. DN (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is important to note, and clear to me, who may be doing most of the reverting as well. An unrefuted case has been made and the edit is not unsupported or improper. It is okay with me if someone switches the words around with "authoritarian", "despotic", or "dictatorial", but "fascistic" is inaccurate in this case. Aquabluetesla 17:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. While I don't think he ever self-identified as a fascist (btw who would?), there is sufficient RS IMO that shows his critics often used that term to describe him. If you prefer we use "his critics referred to him as" as a qualifier, I might not object to it. DN (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is inaccurate, "his critics referred to him as" would be misleading as not very many regard him as a "fascist". Why do a few notable people's opinion regarding Long need to be given WP:UNDUE weight on his article? This is not what is done for former presidents. He was definitely a left-wing populist with some authoritarian tendencies, not at all a "fascist". Aquabluetesla 17:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you admit that there is RS to support it, but "not enough" in your opinion. That is where we are. If you can convince the others to make the change I might choose in favor of consensus, but for now please observe WP:STATUSQUO. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

text: STOP EDIT WARRING...please...DN (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been in the lead since at least January of 2021 but you don't consider that as "longstanding" in your opinion? DN (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  has already refuted your opinions about the cited sources, it honestly seems like you just don't care and will continue to edit war no matter what. DN (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, indeed, it is not a "longstandingedit". It has been removed several times, it's not like it has remained on the article for that long without being removed. See the edit history. No, he did not refute that the guidelines/policies are official. If changing the title "is a no-no", I am unaware of whatever you’re referring to. That title was not written with neutrality in mind. What does "Cheers" mean in your context? I personally don't use that word, possibly due to being an American (excluding Belize). Aquabluetesla 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing section titles (especially other people's edits DN (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus needed for "fascistic"

message: This edit in the lead may be problematic with use of the term "allegedly", and the phrase "some have speculated to be suspicious" may not have RS support in the body. There also doesn't seem to be any consensus for these changes, not to mention the edit summary is nonsensical. DN (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the ability to write whatever I desire to write in the edit summary. Why is that worth mentioning? Anyways, this is out of date now. Your revert of "Some historians", not "all" as you stated, "doesn't seem to [have a] consensus for [the change]". I have changed the original title of this section because it may have been against WP:NPA. Aquabluetesla 08:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

text: MOS:ACCUSED does not justify the change and to claim so is misleading. Even though Weiss was never brought to trial, official investigations concluded that he was the sole culprit. The case is similar to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy; the article describes Oswald in wikivoice as the killer without hedging it. (Those conspiracies, however, are not a fringe view and are much more notable of course.) Moreover, the featured article reviewers did not find any issues with this aspect of the article. I should emphasize that I'm not saying that featured articles are set-in-stone and should never change, but I think it would be best if we discussed any more bold changes here for the sake of lowering tensions. ~ HAL333 15:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I would also be inclined towards the status quo. Conspiracy theories are inherently a touchy subject, and muddying the water much doesn't help a ton. Toa Nidhiki05 17:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose my initial change was a bit too bold. I do think it should specify "Some historians" though. Aquabluetesla 19:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine/indifferent with the change to "Some historians". I "re"-reverted it because I thought that was the agreement. Feel free to change it back though, anyone. ~ HAL333 20:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I raised no issue with Aqua here as to the change of my edit (title) because it did not completely  alter the overall issue being raised, unlike what they did here, which is usually considered WP:TPO...I know this first hand because it is the first and only time I have ever received a WP:BLOCK....Your behavior here should be reviewed by an admin, and I will wait to comment any further until that happens. Perhaps Courcelles is busy, so I will ping  since I've raised the topic of a possible WP:TPO violation. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible weasel wording added to the lead, unsupported context 

message: , can we please stop edit warring over the number of paragraphs in the lead? It's becoming disruptive. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". Moreover, no editors found an issue with this in the FA process. ~ HAL333 13:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss content, not other editors. There is a change of topic from Senator to Presidential campaign. That requires a paragraph break per WP:PARAGRAPH. WP:LEAD's "four paragraphs" is a rule-of-thumb, not a hard limit. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, the lead is broken down into four paragraphs: the first is a simple overview, the second covers his early life and lower state positions, the third covers his tenure as governor, and the fourth covers his career in the federal government.  Regardless, you have no consensus for this massive change to an FA. Please revert it and gain consensus, or I will bring you to ANI. ~ HAL333 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Massive change??? I inserted a single line break. Also, you've now reverted my edit 3 times, while I've only reverted you 2 times. I'd be careful slinging around the term "edit-warring" if I were you. Technically, it only applies to editors who make more than 3 reverts on the same article in 24 hours. We don't go around posting warnings on user talk pages until an editor has make 3 reverts. Doing it after a single revert as you did a couple days ago is bullying. FA is not some kind of "protected status". And you won't know what the WP:CONSENSUS actually is until this discussion is joined by other editors and comes to a conclusion. Skyerise (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You've reverted me three times and have not followed WP:BRD. This change has been reverted by two editors, although I am not sure if  has strong feelings on the topic. ~ HAL333 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have not reverted you three times. My first edit added a paragraph break. It was not a revert of anything. I reverted once on the 1st, and once today. That's it. The other editor made the same edit, and reverted themselves. Skyerise (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong: Bold edit, Revert 1,Revert 2, Revert 3. It's pretty clear cut. Please revert yourself back to the WP:STATUSQUO. ~ HAL333 13:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess now you're just trying to prove you are the bigger edit warrior. Even if you are correct about my 3 reverts, you are now at 4. I won't revert you again today, but I'd be careful about WP:BOOMARANG at ANI, if I were you. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose adding a fifth paragraph. Please stop it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph breaks in lead 

message: In the main section of the article (before “Early Life”), the article states “Long was assassinated by Carl Weiss”. Should consider rephrasing this in light of contrary evidence such as https://circulatingnow.nlm.nih.gov/2018/09/11/letters-shed-light-on-huey-longs-murder-mystery/ DeniseLP (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for the source, which is excellent and we'll be including it. By my reading, as of this datestamp this article gives due weight to presented evidence that Carl Weiss did not fire a fatal shot, as does the article on the assassination itself (which has a long subsection on the theory). By my reading, this interpretation of the evidence is still considered a minority view among biographies used for sourcing of this article. I'd be glad to hear discussion on the subject. BusterD (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: the source is Very Poor.  the sited source states: "Ochsner was not present in the Capitol that night but in his letters he told DeBakey..."   ie he's giving us  hearsay--he heard it from mystery person XYZ and we have zero evidence on the credibility of XYZ (did  XYZ see it himself or  did XYZ hear it from ABC who heard it from DEF....) credibility of fourth hand hearsay = near zero.  Ochsner goes on to speculate about politics saying he relies on "dope" (ie rumor)  I recommend leaving it out. Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Weiss