Talk:Paul Douglas (Illinois politician)

message: In 1948, in the midst of scandal and knowing the national ticket was going to be headed by the then unpopular Harry S Truman, the Illinois Democratic party choose two men with impeccable reputations to be its nominees for governorship and Senate, respectively.  The two men were Adlai Stevenson]] and Paul Douglas.  Both men won, perhaps having reverse coattails for Harry Truman, who barely carried the state.
I removed this from article for npov and relevance  of Stevenson  in relationship to Douglas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith03 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 23 August 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The article should discuss Douglas's contributions to the field of economics, which were substantial (e.g., Cobb-Douglas (production) function).  I plan to add material on this as a separate section from "Family Life" and change the title of the section currently called "Academia and Family Life" to "Family Life."  Any thoughts? --JChap2007 15:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academia 

message: The article should mention the hostility toward Douglas on the part of the Southern Democrats, especially Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson.  For example, even though he was an expert on taxation, Johnson did not appoint him to the powerful Senate Finance Committee, but instead to the powerless Joint Economic Committee.  The hostility is significant because it limited Douglas's power in the Senate.  Unless someone objects, I will add some facts to the part on Douglas's Senate career in this regard. --JChap2007 15:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career in Senate 

message: This could easily be an A-class article.  It is complete and (a Wikipedia ideal seldom lived up to) concise, and with no fan POV.  It needs a few citations, which I've tagged.  Once they are fixed, this article should be promoted to A-class. J M Rice (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: Shouldn't the Cobb-Douglas production function be mentioned in this article somewhere? Or is the the wrong Douglas? At least it is the one pointed to by the article about the production function. Even if he is more important as a politician, the function is elemental to production theory and is taught in every micro 101 class.--Asdirk (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cobb-Douglas function 

message: How were Douglas and Stevenson the 'top two thirds'? Did the Democrats only field 3 candidates that year?
Obviously not. If this is supposed to mean something; then what?Ion G Nemes (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Top two thirds of the democratic slate?

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, the senator fits historical long-term significance as his influence on the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, environmental movement and its issues, etc., was quite large exactly when they were needed to be large. An example of the right man in the right place. As for living half-a-century ago, that's why an encyclopedia relates topics without regard to decreasing the importance of an era - it looks at people, topics, and their place in history as a whole. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 April 2024