Jump to content

Talk:Calvin Coolidge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

reaction

I took out "...After that, Coolidge became withdrawn and mute. Before he had been a relatively active, talkative,

While Coolidge was deeply saddened by his youngest son's death, he certainly did not become mute ("When he went the power and the glory of the Presidency went with him."). He was never known to be talkative, even before Calvin,Jr's death.

Does anybody know why the English version (as well as other Western language versions) messed up the Chinese link? (Japanese and Chinese versions are fine) -- Jackcsk 04:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

did he have Indian blood?

this site claims he had Indian blood

He said that he did, and his biographers seem to agree. See Calvin Coolidge, The Man from Vermont, by Claude Fuess. Coemgenus 02:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I beleive he was refering to the vial of Soiux blood that he kept under his pillow. Drunkboxer 00:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted Quotes

Just to point out, the quote on persistence was repeated twice, once near the top and again at the bottom. I removed the second incarnation. Also, I just find it intertesting to see that the quote regarding "You lose" has been changed to "Poppa wins." Everywhere I've looked, including Wikiquotes, has the quote as "You lose." The Whitehouse biography has this as well. Is there another reputable source that justifies this change? --Az 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The change was made by an anon whose only edits are two to this page to change the quote. I'm guessing vandalism. I'll fix it. Hbackman 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thought that might be the case, but wasn't sure enough to change it myself. If that really is true, though I've always heard it the other way, someone will show up to fix it for us.--Az 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I rm the fol quote: "I am a very important man and I was reelected in spite of what nay-sayers noted, take that!" I can't find this anywhere on the Net; if it is actually a noted quote, we should say noted by whom. Not that the Net is the be all and end all of info; however, there should be at least a mention of it somewhere, as it seem sto be very uncharacteristicof Mr Coolidge. As well, it was added in by a user whose only other edit was a pointless POV insert at Zimbabwe to the effect of "they never should have kicked all the Europeans out", all in caps.

I'd really like to see some citation for this quote. It only appears here and in towo other online "encyclopedias" which use Wikipedia as source. SigPig 10:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Hmm, I'm not so sure about the link "Silent Cal" in the notes section. Is linking to a site that's selling a term paper on the topic really a good idea? Shouldn't this be a more authoritative source instead? I'll look for something of the sort, but I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this.--Az 21:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this? --David Harville 15:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Cool Cal" mnemonic?

What is this "Cool Cal" mnemonic the article talks about? It should be explained in the text (and I can't find anything on Google). SigPig 00:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I was going to ask the same thing, but saw your question here, with no answer. A nickname, probably. Alliteration, certainly. But a mnemomic? Doubt it. I'll change it, and if anyone reverts it, then can that person please add justification as to why it is a mnemomic?StephenBuxton 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere (I know, not particularly helpful) that is was a campaign slogan of his at some point. Leon 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Favorite

This may sound odd, but Cal has always been my favorite president. I think his ideas were brilliant. andrew... 04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Carlos Coolidge

Could someone confirm that Carlos Coolidge was a relative of Calvin Coolidge?--Rayc 04:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

The Journal of American History published in June 2006 an article here, which points out that: "This waffling—encouraged by the npov policy—means that it is hard to discern any overall interpretive stance in Wikipedia history. One might expect—given the Randian politics of the founders and the strength of libertarian sentiments in cyberspace—a libertarian or conservative slant. But I did not find it. One can see occasional glimmers, as in the biography of Calvin Coolidge that says with apparent approval, “Coolidge was the last President of the United States who did not attempt to intervene in free markets, letting business cycles run their course.” This sentence was inserted early on by an avowed libertarian and it has survived dozens of subsequent edits." It seems this sentence has been correctly removed. Tazmaniacs 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

March 4, 1929

General sources:

  • From the Senate Report on Presidential terms: From 1789 through 1937, presidential and vice presidential terms ended on March 4 of every year following a presidential election, a date set by the Second Congress.
  • From Hind's House Precedents §6694-8. §6725 ftnote: On the 3d of March, 1851, Mr. Stephens offered a resolution to test this question, and on the ruling of Speaker Cobb it was decided that the Congress expired at noon on the 4th of March; which ruling has been in effect ever since. (6697)

Coolidge arose at 7:00 AM March 4, 1929, and (after breakfast, and a complaint that it always rained when moved) "went to his desk and signed more bills" (Richard Sobel: Coolidge: An American enigma. p, 402.) Septentrionalis 19:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Question from a Brit

What does running for the presidency as a 'favourite son' mean? Martyn Smith 14:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry if I screwed up the format of this page, but I had to remove the vandalism that said Coolidge is a cocksucker. Coolidhe was a great man.

at the presidential nominating convention, in the old days a state delegation would often cast their votes for a prominent person from that state--the "favorite son"--as an honor. Then on 2nd ballot switch to real candidate.Rjensen 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The term "favorite son" is still used. Nowadays it tends to mean a candidate who is running in his home state -- for example, during a party's presidential primary [statewide vote to help the party choose its candidate for president] -- and regarded as a favorite to do well, if not win. The term is sometimes extended beyond a state's borders: in the New Hampshire Democratic party in 1992, Paul Tsongas of neighboring Massachusetts came in ahead of Bill Clinton. Part of Tsongas's victory was attributed to 'favorite son' status, because in theory as a U. S. Senator from a neighboring state he would have been better known to New Hampshire voters. Also, a person will sometimes run as a favorite son in order to garner most of a state's primary votes and hold them at the party's nominating convention, in hopes of influencing the eventual outcome. — OtherDave 01:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

HEY This NUTS!

Vandalism is back. Someone should go through this article and make sure that nothing else is changed. Also this page should probably be locked.

  • I concur. In its latest iteration, the vandalism has taken on the form of somebody replacing every instance of "Coolidge" with "Kool-Aid". I too suggest that the page be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.168.253 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

August 2nd EST or August 3rd PST, 1923

When President Harding died (Before Mid-night, Aug.2, 1923) in Los Angeles (PST), Vice President Calvin Coolidge became President. However, Coolidge was in (at the momment of Harding's death) Vermont (past mid-night, wee early morning of Aug. 3 EST). Should we list Coolidge as becoming President on August 3rd? How should this be listed? GoodDay 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You mean August 3 EST, August 2 PST. While Harding may have died on August 2 where he was located, Coolidge was the incoming President and it was August 3 in Coolidge's location. So *Coolidge* became President on August 3. (This has nothing to do with being "sworn in" some time after the death of Mr. Harding; Coolidge became President as soon as Harding died.) 69.243.144.144 (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Vandalism

1928 Election: "He did not seek I LOVE JOEY renomination" I don't know if this should be "republican renomination" or if it it just "renomination" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.189.197.44 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Hit the "history" tab up top and you get a log of all the edits to the article. You can use the "compare versions" feature to see what exactly was done each time. Someone has already fixed the vandalism you noticed. Thanks for paying attention. Mrees1997 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

KKK

Why is the reference to Coolidge's KKK connection always removed? The photos of the large rally and parades of 1925-26 in front of the White House exist. He was the for lack of a better word "Grand Marshal". This is WRONG to remove when there are photos, this is wrong to remove when it is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.151.172 (talk • contribs)

I've read every Coolidge biography and not one mentions this. Provide a citation to a reliable source, and it can stay in. Coemgenus 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
How about The History Channel's "Ku Klux Klan: A Secret History?" That a good enough source for you? It even shows his enlistment papers. Pvegeta 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. I mean a reliable source. Theories as unusual as the one we're discussing here typically require a higher level of citation than a sensationalist cable TV show. The commenter above says that at the Klan rally in 1925, Coolidge "was for lack of a better word 'Grand Marshal.'" His scholarly biographers, on the other hand, confirm that Coolidge held no such position, and was not even in Washington when the rally took place but was vacationing in Swampscott, Massachusetts. (See Ferrell, 111-112; Greenberg, 86). That's the difference between a reliable source and a television show. Coemgenus 21:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons

I'm not sure I see the point in the little state flags next to Coolidge's places of birth and death. But if you're going to use them, why use Vermont for Vermont when at the time Coolidge was born was the flag of Vermont? This all seems rather pointless, since the name of the state is already there, obviating the need for a flag, but if we're going to keep them, let's at least get it right. Coemgenus 15:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Those who believe the government should be more involved"

Is that really the other point of view that Greenberg describes, as opposed to, perhaps, people who see in his policies the groundwork of the Depression? With Hoover as his sec. commerce, Coolidge's administration was not exactly non-interventionist unless you compare it to Wilson's war administration. Gazpacho 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoover was certainly interventionist as President, but he agreed with Coolidge on vetoing the McNary-Haugen bill. I can't think of any example of Coolidge being more interventionist than his successor, or more than his immediate predecessors. People blamed him for the Depression fifty years ago, but is that still something historians talk about? The Depression didn't even start in America; it largely grew out of conditions in Europe, though I will agree that tariffs (something Coolidge believed in) made the situation worse for the average American. Still, I can't see blaming worldwide economic collapse on Coolidge, especially not in the lead paragraph. Coemgenus 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed it a little. Let me know if you think that's more accurate. I re-read the section of Greenberg I cited, but it's pretty positive, so I looked to Ferrell, who's more down on Coolidge. He seems to think Coolidge should have done something to stop stock market speculation. Coemgenus 10:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Teapot Dome

"Coolidge had not stood out in the Harding administration, as much of the focus was on the scandals that had begun to emerge by 1923, most notoriously the Teapot Dome scandal."

I question the accuracy of the above sentence, but I do not have access to the sources cited. According to WP's Teapot Dome article, it did not become a full-blown scandal until 1924, after harding died. Thus, even though it had begun to emerge by 1923, it would not have been a major focus. Finally, there is no way it good have been a major focus in 1921 or 1922, the other two years of the Harding administration.

I'm also not sure why it's significance that "Coolidge had not stood out." Very few VPs stood out. I propose that the sentence be deleted.

For the same reason, I would delete the sentence part that reads "Although many of Harding's cabinet appointees were scandal-tarred." Most, if not all of the affected appointees became scandal-tarred after he allowed them to stay on.Eldred 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about the first bit; I combined and shortened two sentences. Do you think that's more accurate? As for the "scandal-tarred" sentence, I'd like to recheck the citation over the weekend before replying. I think Fuess may be referring to other scandals besides Teapot Dome. Coemgenus 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's more accurate, thanks.Eldred 19:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Parodies

It's a rare day in America that anyone speaks Calvin Coolidge's name in the 21st Century. I think it would be interesting and useful to include the parody of Coolidge in Jon Stewart's America (the Book) as a published mention of that fact that the nickname Silent Cal is iconic of Coolidge's image, even unto 2006. The exact wording of the reference is the same as the first quotation about the "more than two words" bet, but he "replies", "fuck you" instead. It's perfectly acceptable to include the full Jon Stewart quotation (WP:NOT), but it's not absolutely necessary per the reason for including a sentence about the book's mention of Coolidge. VanTucky 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Coolidge was wittier.. Brutannica 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he was one of the great wits of his time. He was not broadly funny, but witty in the correct sense of the word. See http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Cals-Almanack-Homespun-Vermonts/dp/B001EQ5216. 69.243.144.144 (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel
I think the "X in popular culture" sections are frowned upon. That book, amusing as it is (I own a copy,) has nothing to do with Calvin Coolidge. Coemgenus 23:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"mitigating some of the adverse effects of capitalism"

"mitigating some of the adverse effects of capitalism"

This line, that appears in the very first section of the article, seems particularly biased. Some believe there are adverse affects that should, or even could, be mitigated. However, others believe that the adverse situations that are attributed to capitalism, are in fact created, if not at least exasperated, by programs that purport to mitigate them.

This statement does not seem to take into account such differing views.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHornet (talk • contribs)

No, that statement does not take into account differing views. The point of that sentence is to illustrate that there are different opinions about Coolidge. Some think his reduction of government was good, and some think he should have had a government that intervened more. The two clauses of that sentence reflect these two opinions. I wrote it, and I can assure you that I am not biased against Coolidge; I think he was one of the best presidents the U.S. ever had. But that section was meant to address his legacy, which is mixed. Coemgenus 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for your contributions to a great article. Much appreciated. I didn't think the statment was biased against Coolidge, it's just that when reading it, it seems to make an assumption that there are indeed "adverse effects" (or "harsher effects") of capitalism. Not every believes that detrimental effects are a foregone conclusion in a truly free market. Phrasing might be included such as "supposed adverse effects", or maybe just refer to the name of the system of thinking that opposed him, e.g. "economic interventionism". Just my thoughts. Thanks, (BrownHornet 02:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
I agree with you, but when I first wrote the article I ran such phrases by some of my leftist friends, and they found them biased the other way. I think maybe your idea of "economic intervensionism" might be another option to consider. I'll fiddle with it. Thanks for your comment - I'm glad you liked the article. Coemgenus 13:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the word "supposed" could seem a little derogatory. Maybe "believed effects"? Anyway, having recently watched Milton Friedman's 10 episode "Free to Choose" PBS documentary from 1980, I realize there is a strong contingent of free market proponents who quite effectively argue that most perceived ill effects of capitalism are actually due to other interferences in the market. Thanks again.(BrownHornet 13:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Is this a fair statement?

The introduction makes a statement "Many later criticized Coolidge as part of a general criticism of laissez-faire government, especially in times of economic hardship, such as the Great Depression.", with an accompanying reference. This statement seems a little unfair to Coolidge, given that his Presidency did not even extend into the Great Depression. Criticizing laissez-faire government is one thing, but should it be mentioned in the article on Coolidge considering that his Presidency coincided with the 1920s boom? -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the standard criticism of Coolidge. You're right, it's not fair, but one of the negative things people say about Coolidge is that laissez-faire government somehow caused the Depression. I think it's bullshit, but if I leave it out, then people say I'm only telling one side of the historical interpretation. Feel free to try and come up with something better, but that sentence has been the subject of considerable edit-warring between leftists and rightists -- don't be surprised if someone takes issue with whatever you write. Coemgenus 15:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
How about just "Coolidge was later criticized as part of a general criticism of laissez-faire government", keeping the existing reference but not mentioning economic hardship or Great Depression? My point is that a discussion of laissez-faire vs protectionism is needed and justified, but the Coolidge article is not a place for it purely because Coolidge's presidency did not have any economic trouble. If anything, it may be put into he Herbert Hoover article, where it may be appropriate given the widespread existence of shantytowns called "Hoovervilles" in the early 1930s. Putting it in the Coolidge article is really blaming the wrong guy for the Depression. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 16:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As an addendum, I have encountered a school of thought that Coolidge's policies indirectly contributed to the Depression but he didn't take the blame for it because he wasn't President when it started. If that is the case, it may be explicitly stated, into something like "Coolidge was later criticized as part of a general criticism of laissez-faire government.(REFERENCE) Some of this criticism is due to a belief that Coolidge's policies contributed to the Great Depression(REFERENCE); it should be mentioned however that Coolidge's presidency did not overlap with the Great Depression, and that his presidency was marked with economic prosperity (REFERENCE to the 1920s boom)." -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What you've written seems reasonable, and it doesn't contradict the citations. Coemgenus 10:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


The statement "he practiced transactional law, believing that he served his clients best by staying out of court" reflects a negative POV regarding the legal profession, as it implies that most lawyers do not share that view. Any good transactional lawyer attempts to draw contracts and other documents in which the rights of the client are protected, and, to the extent possible, eliminate or at least minimize the potential for litigation later on.

John Paul Parks (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it, and I am a transactional lawyer. Any POV here is Coolidge's POV on the profession, as expressed by his biographers. If you're interested in Cal's legal career, the Fuess biography is the most detailed, though the autobiography will certainly give you his terse take on things. Coemgenus 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Coolidge and animals

While researching Billy (pygmy hippo) I discovered that Coolidge had an extensive collection of animals from his time at the White House, second only to Theodore Roosevelt. He also discusses it briefly in his memoirs. Think it's worth mentioning somewhere in the article? I don't want to just start inserting stuff into a Featured Article without bringing it up on talk. --JayHenry 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is interesting, but it seems a bit trivial to insert in this article. Maybe on Grace Coolidge's page? Coemgenus 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Very Nice

I am quite impressed with this article. It has helped me dramatically with my A.P. United States History essay assignment! Thanks!Wrhapsody 23:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you cited your sources. Vincent Valentine 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I was also impressed by this article. It is very well put together, and it even has a video in it. I learned a lot! =D - Shini

Son of the American Revolution

While vaguely interesting, Coolidge was in a hundred organizations, being a politician. We can't list them all. He was far enough removed from the Revolution itself to make no more difference in his life than the rest of us. That is, membership by heredity from that distance is not interesting to readers IMO. Also, we don't want to make article a category farm, as it were. Student7 (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC) i am his 12year old distient relitive. i dont evan know him. BUT I KNOW HE WAS GREAT. well that is what i think about him. 7:38,12 jan 2009

Neutral POV please. --MissMeticulous (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This idea that progressivism is new and conservatism is a throwback has got to go

I demand that the following phrase, "In many ways Coolidge's style of governance was a throwback to the passive presidency of the nineteenth century.[1]" is stricken from this "fabulous" article. Limited government is not an "old" idea, and big government a "new" idea. I am very weary of this well-poisoning by power-obsessed "progressives."

Furthermore, I would love to know how the Fed inflated boom of the 1920s, leading to "speculation" and malinvestment is an example of "laissez-faire" capitalism. The fact is it isn't. And no amount of whitewashing by leftists can alter this easily comprehensible fact.

Remedy this article or risk further ridicule from people who know better than to drink this Kool-aid.

(UTC)Reasonsjester (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence, and I can assure you that I am the farthest thing from a leftist or a "power-obsessed progressive." Coolidge's style of governance is a throwback in that the presidents before his and Harding's terms (TR, Taft, Wilson) were interested in increasing government's size and scope, while Presidents before them (Cleveland, McKinley) were not. You are not only wrong but uncivil. Coemgenus 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
throwback is a negative term. I tried to say he returned to Cleveland's philosophy.Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I meant it as a positive term, but I guess such things are in the eye of the beholder. "Return" makes it clearer. Coemgenus 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Foreign Policy section

It currently says: "The Senate eventually approved joining the Court (with reservations) in 1926.[116] The League of Nations accepted the reservations, but suggested some modifications of their own.[117]" Shouldn't it say: "The Senate eventually approved joining the Court (with reservations) in 1926.[116] The Permanent Court of International Justice accepted the reservations, but suggested some modifications of their own.[117]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.192.234 (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

The recent flap about Michelle Obama touching the queen recalls to mind the joke that when the queen (not this one, but the queen consort) visited the White House, she was greeted by the supposedly terse Coolidge with the phrase "Hi, Queen!"

Another common story involved a woman jokingly saying to Coolidge, "I made a bet with someone that I could get you to say more than two words." Coolidge supposedly replied, "You lose!" and walked away!

I guess this didn't make Featured Article containing this sort of humor. Too bad!

And before someone deletes this as irrelevant, my question is, why can't quotes, even fictive ones, be included? This must have been discussed earlier. Student7 (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a biographical article, not a collection of attributed statements. Check out wikiquote for the wit and wisdom of Calvin Coolidge, or the Hannaford book listed in the sources. Also, the "you lose" conversation actually is in the article, and has been since it was first featured. Coemgenus 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Note 127. Quote Regarding Hoover. Please Provide Source

Please properly source this statement and quote:

Coolidge had been lukewarm on the choice of Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."

This is all that is there:

^ Brandes, ___ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.230.254 (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to fix that one. It's sourced now to a different book, with page number. Coemgenus 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

Can someone please go down to the references and be more specific with them. They seem to be books, but they don't go into specifics about what those are. I would, but I don't know what those books are. Wm.C (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they need to be straightened out such that the main reference for a book is the first one listed before all the others to the same book. - Denimadept (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The notes in the "notes" section refer to references listed in the "references" section. Coemgenus 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:JCCoolidgeSr.jpg

I tried to move this image to the Family section up top only to have it reverted, noting that the image is under the succession section because the father administered the Oath of Office. While I understand this use of the image, wouldn't the article be better served with it used in a biographical way? The presidency section is already bulky and loaded with image while the entire family life piece is imageless. Why not include the one good image of a family member under the family section? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually thought there were too many pictures in the early part. I think it makes more sense to keep Coolidge Sr. in the Succession section, since that is how he is best known -- as the only father to administer the oath to his son. Coemgenus 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, just move it to the top. There are too many pics in the Presidency part. Coemgenus 13:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Correcting eight inaccuracies in quote from speech to state senate

The text of the speech (available on line at [1]) does not exactly match the quote as it appears in the article. Below is a markup with corrected and omitted text in bold. I am adding "better serve the people, whatever the opposition" because the omission of this phrase changes the meaning somewhat. Interestingly, there was no indication (such as elipses) that anything had been omitted.

Do the day's work. If it be to protect the rights of the weak, whoever objects, do it. If it is be to help a powerful corporation better to serve the people, whatever the opposition, do that. Expect to be called a stand-patter, but do not don't be a stand-patter. Expect to be called a demagogue, but do not don't be a demagogue. Do not don't hesitate to be called as revolutionary as science. Do not don't hesitate to be as reactionary as the multiplication table. Do not don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. Do not don't hurry to legislate. Give administration a chance to catch up with legislation.Majorite (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

German Communist Revolution

Newspapers across the nation picked up on Coolidge's statement and he became the newest hero to defenders of the public's safety and security. In the midst of the First Red Scare, many Americans were terrified of the spread of communist revolution, like those that had taken place in Russia, Hungary, and Germany.

Assuming it's German Revolution of 1918, can it really be called communist revolution as the quote seem to suggest? Zealander (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Succession to the Presidency

This section and First inauguration of Calvin Coolidge seem identical, so I was thinking the latter should re-direct here--Robert Treat (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

I opposed the merge; what of the other articles involving US Presidental Inaugurals will they be merged also. The 1923 Coolidge Inaugural was historically significant in that one President died in office and another succeeded to the office. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge, a Progressive?

"So you put some conservatives, e.g., Huckabee and the neoconservatives into the progressive tradition. Calvin Coolidge was also a progressive."

Could someone here please go to this user talk page and please comment that Calvin Coolidge is not a progressive. This user continues to edit political articles believing that progressivism is modern day conservatism, and it is causing problems.AerobicFox (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comma after "Jr."

Any reason there's a comma after "Jr."? I'd delete it, but I'm only 98% sure it shouldn't be there. It should follow the same convention as dates and places: comma before but not after, like "He moved to San Antonio, Texas on May 24, 2112 with his family and goats.—Biosketch (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not even mentioned

Is the Keep cool with Coolidge phrase. Why is this? Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Include citation. - Denimadept (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Good old trusty Britannica:
At the Republican convention in 1924 Coolidge was nominated virtually without opposition. Running on the slogan “Keep Cool with Coolidge,” he won a landslide victory over conservative Democrat John W. Davis and Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette, gaining about 54 percent of the popular vote to Davis's 29 percent and La Follette's nearly 17 percent; in the electoral college Coolidge received 382 votes to Davis's 136 and La Follette's 13. (See primary source document: Inaugural Address.)
http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9026133
Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo Correct ,but description wrong

In the Photo of Calvin & Grace Coolidge accompanied by Charles Curtis (Senator from Kansas), on their way to the 1925 Inauguration Ceromony. Curtis is has been referred to as Vice-President-Elect. This is WRONG, in the 1925 Inagural. President Coolidge is sworn in for his Full Term as President, Charles G.Dawes is the Vice-President-Elect, Dawes is sworn in as Vice-President. Charles Curtis won't become Vice-President until the 1929 Inauguration , when Herbert C.Hoover becomes President.

http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/pages/education/facts.html

Which photo are you talking about? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent article that may be useful

Here is a recent article in Slate regarding Coolidge's new found fame on the right [3]. Might be useful to incorporate some aspect of this into the article. Remember (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Greenberg's main point seems to be that Coolidge became popular again among conservatives in the 1980s. That point's already in the lede -- and cited to his book! -- so I don't think the article adds much. It was edifying to learn that Amity Shlaes is writing a new Coolidge biography, though. I look forward to reading it and adding any new insights to this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Coolidge's mindset on eve of 1929 financial collapse

To Coemgenus and Rjensen: The deletion of pertinent information on Coolidge as president was removed as being not "appropriate for lede." The insertion of Coolidge's quote as a rosy optimist, not only illustrates how out of touch he was with the country as a whole, how misguided a leader, but adds a poignant, tragic, ironic counterpoint to his identification with the "average" American---an unfortunate demonstration of the hubris which is the curse of those in political life. The economic collapse of the nation was imminent, yet the government, represented by President Calvin Coolidge had their head in the sand. The concept that the "present" sets the road for the "future," is possibly a concept too intellectually challenging?...Betempte (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your addition was far too specific for the article's lead paragraph, and also was not from a neutral point of view. Before insulting your fellow editors, why not familiarize yourself with the appropriate guidelines, namely WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. WP:AGF might be good while you're at it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


Neutrality implies balance. Bias is a matter of degree. Interpretation of information is formed by the sensibilities of the reader. The goal of a biographical entry is to achieve a balanced “portrait” of a life using available documentation. It is objectionable when it skews subject matter in one identifiable direction.

I recognize that biographical editing can become contentious. Two camps of Wiki editors seem to exist—those that insist on presenting historical figures in a predominately positive light, “the icon syndrome,” I call it, and those that feel a responsibility to provide (as much as possible) a fully rounded “life story,” —the good, the bad and the ugly that is part of the human package. If I have offended anyone in expressing my philosophy on rigorous editing, I apologize. We can agree to disagree.Betempte (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

the real problem is that the passage is jejune, and is not related to the crash of 1929 and is not about the American Dream, as the editor said in the introduction he added. That makes it a poor edit. Coolidge was repeating a point often made by sociologists: the "luxuries" of one era (like bathtubs and autos and TVs and cellphones) become the necessities of later eras. That held true as well during the depression, when people who could no longer afford telephones, say, felt very badly because they lost not a luxury but a necessity. They did keep their cars, as did the Joads in "Grapes of Wrath." (viewers outside the US were astonished that dirt poor Americans owned such fabulous luxuries). Rjensen (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

"His policy of normalcy, or normality, stands in marked difference to the government activism of his successor Herbert Hoover, leading to a deficit and probably greatly deepening the Great Depression" Does it make sense to accuse Herbert Hoover of being too left-wing in a Wikipedia introduction about Coolidge? I see the source is Amity Shlaes; it's worth mentioning that this assertion is controversial at the very least. --Matt McIrvin (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That stuff was added this week. I had planned to revert it, or at least trim it, myself. If you want to have a whack at it, I'm all for it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
There were some more POV edits today. I rolled all of them back to the more neutral (and much-debated) consensus of a few weeks ago. If there's any more need for change, let's discuss it here first to avoid edit wars and POV text. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

# of press conferences?

In the "Silent Cal" section it says he gave 520 press conferences, but in the "Radio, film, commemorations, legacy" section it says he gave 529. One of these figures is wrong, or both I suppose. 56.0.84.26 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The source cited for 529 actually says 520. I fixed it. Good catch. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Go Figure

Coolidge's self-proclaimed guard dogs whine here about critical statements made of Coolidge (and laissez-faire capitalism in general), calling such assertions biased and "unfair" in the name of maintaining a non-partisan biographical article--and yet, these same individuals seem to be more inclined to advance, and keep within the article, slanted and largely irrelevant opinions in support of Coolidge and laissez-faire capitalism, than they are to question their neutrality and validity, as they are (and should be) doing in their criticism of biased and dissenting opinions from the left.

In other words, rather than attempt to present this article from as neutral a standpoint as possible by refraining from embracing the views of either the left or the right, editors are attaching a blatant libertarian bias to the process of discussing edits to the article, to say the least. Wikipedia is not a place for Hagiographies, just as it is not a place for harangues or hate articles.

Since just about every edit to this discussion page is tinted with an obvious opinion anyway, I'll add mine by ending with a question: have any of you ever heard of "vulgar" libertarianism?

  • Hard to tell what your objections are, other than objecting in general to other editors. Got any exacting objections, easily digested and debatable? Also the above was not signed or dated. That would help as well. As far as I know there is no such principle of "vulgar" libertarianism. 10stone5 (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Image removed - overcrowding

I have moved the following to reduce overcrowding: File:Coolidge inspects militia.jpg|thumb|right|175px|Governor Coolidge inspects militia. Hoppyh (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Query - Marriage and family section - use of vignettes

The narratives in this section - about his future wife seeing him shaving, and also about the socks, I find entertaining. However, there are others who disagree, because these biographical articles need to stick to more substantive facts. The view is that such vignettes or anecdotes will repel readers looking for substance in such an encyclopedic work. This subject recently was addressed briefly on Woodrow Wilson talk p., with agreement that the material should not be included. Hoppyh (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That said, I expect to be reading through White soon and should have material more pertinent to include. Hoppyh (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I wrote most of that stuff in 2007. Standards have changed, since then. I probably wouldn't include it now. The "Silent Cal" anecdotes, on the other hand, should probably stay, since being a quiet man is the main thing people know about Coolidge and all of his biographers address it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

I've been eyeing the underlying image for a restoration - there's actually a larger version available - that one's taken from the 24 megabyte version with some weird scanning artefacts; there's a much better 64 meg version. However, I'm deeply, deeply uncomfortable with the idea of taking historic photographs, and cutting out two-thirds of the information. Please advise. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Coolidge cowboy

[moved from User talk:Coemgenus] Hello,

In regard to Coolidge's well known affinity for cowboy costumes - it is no exaggeration. Nearly every Coolidge biography mentions it, including Bill Bryson's recent book: "America: One Summer 1927".

The amount of resources on the web detailing Coolidge's cowboy dress is beyond plentiful. Even the White House site mentions it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/calvincoolidge

I would recommend adding a sentence to acknowledge Coolidge's almost comical indulgence of cowboy outfits.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpenderbrook (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If there's a better scholarly source than a picture, sure, maybe, even if it is kind of trivial. But the White House website doesn't support your point that he made a habit of dressing as a cowboy. It says "But no President was kinder in permitting himself to be photographed in Indian war bonnets or cowboy dress, and in greeting a variety of delegations to the White House." (emphasis added). That's not the same thing. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's more evidence: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-president-calvin-coolidge-and-his-wife-first-lady-news-photo/3241273 (It isn't easy finding images from nearly 100 years ago!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpenderbrook (talk • contribs) 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are pictures of him in cowboy gear, but for us to say it was his habit, we need a source, something where a Coolidge scholar actually wrote it up. For a wiki editor to look at a couple pics and draw a conclusion is original research. We deal in secondary sources, not primary. You say it's in nearly every Coolidge biography, though, so if you can point me to a page number, I'll be glad to add it in. I own almost all of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Only sitting President to Visit Cuba

I'm not sure this is true anymore, I think Obama visited recently. 20.132.68.148 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Speechwriter

There seems to be a dispute regarding the accuracy of our content regarding Coolidge's speechwriter. According to Priamel, White's book does not confirm that Coolidge's speechwriter was named Hulseberg, and in fact there happens to be a modern person of that name who works as an intern for McCain, quite a coincidence (compare User talk:Priamel). Ad Orientem replaced the content without comment. Ad Orientem, did you check what White says on this topic? Unfortunately I don't have immediate access to the book myself, but I cannot find any non-Wikipedia-related online sources for this supposed speechwriter. Huon (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The material that was removed was sourced to a WP:RS book that I have seen and read in the past and that included a page number. When the content that is cited with an RS source was removed with a claim that it is factually false, but did not cite evidence, I reverted the edit. That said, I do not currently have a copy of the work and cannot immediately verify the claim. It is possible that this line may have been altered as a form of subtle vandalism. Sadly I have seen it before. If Priamel has a copy of the book and confirms that the claim is/was factually inaccurate then I am fine with leaving it out until we can confirm the veracity of the disputed material. On a related note I had always been under the impression that Coolidge was the last president who wrote most of his own speeches. If true that would tend to support the doubts raised over the material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I have a better source. and added this: He kept Harding's able speechwriter Judson T. Welliver; Stuart Crawford replaced Welliver in November 1925. David Greenberg (2006). Calvin Coolidge: The American Presidents Series: The 30th President, 1923-1929. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 48–49. Rjensen (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Calvin, Jr.

@SNUGGUMS: I wasn't being dramatic or hyperbolic; all the sources call Coolidge's second son "Calvin Jr." Besides the New York Times obituary linked in that section ("President's son, Calvin Jr., 16 dies"), Coolidge's biographers also follow that format. Claude Fuess's 1933 book ("His second son, Calvin Coolidge, Jr., was a boy who in many respects resembled his father."); William White's 1938 book ("John, the elder, is like his mother; Cal, Jr., like his father.); Donald McCoy in 1967 ("...he was a dreadful tease of both her and the boys, John and Calvin, Jr."); Robert Sobel in 1998 ("His sixteen-year-old son, Calvin, Jr., stubbed his toe while playing tennis."); Robert Ferrell, also in 1998 ("The death of Calvin, Jr., who greatly resembled his father...."); and Amity Shlaes in 2013 ("Eventually they settled on the name both had known all along was the right one: Calvin, Jr."). So, it's not just my personal predilection, it's the name by which the boy was commonly known. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

1) claiming "all the sources" call him that is actually exaggerated; see for example Calvin Coolidge by Robin Santos Doak and U.S. Presidents Factbook by Elizabeth Jewell. 2) The use of a "Jr." suffix specifically indicates that a son was given the exact same name as his father and that there were no previous relatives before the father with that exact name. The president himself was named "John Calvin Coolidge Jr." after his own father John Calvin Coolidge Sr. If the president did name a son fully after himself, then the name would actually be John Calvin Coolidge III (assuming nobody else in the family had a son of this name in between President's birth and son's birth). The president didn't do that with sons named "John Coolidge" and "Calvin Coolidge", so it would be factually inaccurate (and thus inappropriate) to include a suffix for either of the president's sons. 3) There sadly are people who incorrectly refer to people by "Jr" when they don't actually share the father's full name, but it doesn't mean we should repeat their mistakes by misleading Wikipedia's readers. 4) WP:COMMONNAME (which you linked) applies to article titles rather than prose, and is a moot point anyway when the son doesn't have or warrant his own article to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be born in mind that President Coolidge dropped the "John" fairly early in life and went exclusively by Calvin. That's how he signed his name including on legislation and other government documents. This was not an uncommon practice in those days. That is certainly how he was universally known (his own father called him Calvin) and I think it meets the standard for COMMONNAME. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Which carries greater weight: the opinions of Wikipedia editors or the near-universal consensus among reliable sources? (Also, the Doak volume you cite is a children's book, not a piece of mainstream scholarship). --Coemgenus (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Coemgenus, you clearly missed the point that your previous assertion that "all" sources use the suffix is exaggerated, and that suffixes can and have been misused. For what it's worth, Encycoplaedia Britannica also doesn't mistakenly use it. Ad Orientem, I'm not sure if by "dropped" you mean "legally changed identity", but people can go by one name (including a middle name) while having a different full identity. For example, Grover Cleveland's first name was "Stephen", and Woodrow Wilson's first name was "Thomas". Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Prior to the 1930's (and the Social Security Act in particular) very few people would have bothered with a legal change of name. Mainly because nobody cared and there weren't a lot of government agencies that needed to keep track of people. All of the examples you cited rather prove the point. None of them as far as I am aware bothered with any legal change of name. And yet they were President Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge. It's perfectly normal for a man known almost universally as Calvin to have his son with the same name add Jr. And there is the strong preponderance of reliable sources that support this usage. I'm starting to wonder what we are debating here. As far as I can tell no RS sources are saying that the use of Jr is somehow wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I'm not saying it was used correctly, I'm saying that's how he was identified in the reliable sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
You misinterpreted my point; I was saying how Cleveland and Wilson were referred to by one name while their official full names were something else. I was not stating or even suggesting that their first names ceased to be part of who they were. As for the suffix use, while sources may have identified his son with it, such a use gives the misleading impression that the president's son carried his same exact name. We shouldn't give readers the wrong ideas. On the other hand, not including a suffix for his son doesn't contain any misleading implications. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
But he did carry his father's exact name. His father had dropped the John and was Calvin Coolidge. That was all that was required in those days. And once again, we go with what the overwhelming majority of RS sources say. What you are proposing is to ignore RS sources in order to make some kind of OR/POV point. That's a no no around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
When did such a change to his name occur? Unless the President's name was officially changed from "John Calvin Coolidge Jr." to "Calvin Coolidge" (which I haven't seen any evidence of), it is factually inaccurate to add a suffix to his son's name when that was simply "Calvin Coolidge". There are also sources proving my point that the President's son didn't have a suffix as I noted above. Just because a large number of people say something doesn't always mean it's accurate. "Overwhelming majority" is a stretch either way. There unfortunately are times when even generally credible sources make mistakes, but that doesn't mean we should repeat them. Despite previous misuses of suffixes, it's common knowledge that a man named "Jr." specifically indicates that he has the exact same full name as his father and no previous relatives before the father carried that exact same name. Again, unless it is proven the President's name was officially changed from "John Calvin Coolidge Jr." to "Calvin Coolidge", it is incorrect (and therefore inappropriate) to add a suffix to his son's name. Omission of detail also isn't in itself "ignoring" sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not how it works. We go by what reliable sources tell us. A preponderance clearly use the suffix Jr. We do not substitute our own opinions for what those sources are saying. Or to put it another way, if Wikipedia had been around during the time of Galileo, we would state flatly that the sun revolved around the Earth and to the extent we discussed heliocentrism it would be described as a fringe theory because that is what the reliable sources told us. We are not in the business of discerning truth and error. We just repeat what the RS sources are saying. If you have sources that say that Jr. is wrong then we will need to extend this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What!? Factual accuracy is a key part of what overall makes sources reliable! Saying you look for a credible source with no concern for accuracy level is like saying a person with peanut allergies should eat peanut butter without worrying about their health!! There's also a difference between abiding by sources and overlooking errors. Don't confuse the two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well they are errors in your opinion. Clearly I disagree as does Coemgenus. If you want to challenge the reliability of the sources using the suffix Jr then RSN is this way. In the meantime there is no consensus in favor redacting the suffix from the article, nor are there any sources (so far) that state the use of it is wrong. Until that changes I think we are just going in circles here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is no consensus to remove the Jr. It's what the reliable sources say, so it's what we have to say. What you're arguing is for your own vision of absolute truth. Wikipedia doesn't deal in truths, it deals in verifiability. I'm going to re-add it. [EDIT: Nevermind, Ad Orientem already did it]. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"Support of racial equality"

Just wondering if this is meant to mean he was relatively progressive for his time. As far as I can see his record on overall racial equality is fairly soft, he did sign the immigration act of 1924. I will admit that he seemingly enhanced African American education and its federal funding through Howard University. Racial Equality might be a stretch, support of the African-American community may be more applicable. SIMPLEphilosopher (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I'm a little skeptical of that claim as well. Coolidge said this: "There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law." Coolidge was probably above-average for his time, but the claim that he was a stalwart supporter of racial equality seems too strong. Orser67 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
the statement "both sides praise his stalwart support of racial equality" is about historians. It is not supported by footnote 3, or any other source I have seen. Historians note that he disliked the KKK but stopped talking about it when it was costing him votes--that is not "stalwart." the statement is poorly supported by the text section on "Civil rights" which strings together primary sources and does not look at historians' evaluations. Rjensen (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Given these issues, I'm starting to wonder if this article's "Featured Article" status should be reviewed. Orser67 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I wrote this article and got it promoted to featured ten years ago. Standards have changed since then and some sub-standard material has crept in. I still have all the source material, so I guess I ought to start re-writing it. I agree that it's quality is not what it should be. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the measured response, Coemgenus, and my apologies if I came off as overly critical at all. I've noticed some of the other articles you've written and you do great work. Orser67 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Orser67, I appreciate that. I've thought for a while that this page needed work, so you've given me the reason to finally do it. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Date of Coolidge's Succession: Aug 2 or 3?

Lasalleexplorer re this edit... It depends on how you view presidential succession. Warren Harding died on the night of August 2nd 1923 but Coolidge did not get word and take the oath of office as President until after midnight. This touches on a subject that was of some debate among constitutional scholars prior to the ratification of the 25th amendment. Some believed that to become president on the death or incapacitation of a sitting president that the vice president needed to take the formal oath of office. However there was a very strongly held school of thought that the language of Article II does not require this. It says simply that "In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident..." This would seem to suggest that the framers envisioned a presidency that would never be unoccupied, much like a hereditary monarchy. "The king is dead long live the king."

When President Harrison died only a month after taking office in 1841 his Vice President John Tyler believed that he had become President immediately on the death of his predecessor. However he chose to take the presidential oath out of an abundance of caution and as a formality. That precedent has been observed ever since and some believed it was more than a formality. But it seems that serious constitutional scholars were divided on the point. Following the assassination of President Kennedy there was some discussion of what would have happened if Kennedy had lived but was effectively a vegetable. Former President Eisenhower publicly came down firmly on the side of the office is never vacant. He opined in an interview that Vice President Johnson became the acting President the moment Kennedy was hit in the head and had all of the powers of the office at his disposal. He went on to state that Johnson was in fact the President from the moment Kennedy was pronounced dead, more than hour before he took the oath of office.

Since then the ratification of the 25th amendment effectively codified this approach to presidential succession and no one seriously debates it any more. But Coolidge succeeded decades before the 25th amendment came into effect, in a world where instant succession was not as critical as it might be in an age of nuclear missiles and maybe 20 minutes of warning in an attack. My own view is that of President Tyler. The oath was, and is a nice formality, arguably an important symbolic act. But there is no sede vacante in the presidency. The moment Warren Harding expired (around 7:30 PST), Calvin Coolidge became President of the United States (probably in his sleep). And it was still August 2nd 1923. But this is not a crystal clear issue and there may be some who would argue that back then the oath was still more than a formality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Great response to my edit. Thank you Ad Orientem! Lasalleexplorer (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There has been a significant amount of discussion about what date to list for VPs who become President - see, for example, Talk:List of Presidents of the United States § Start of terms for Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, and Coolidge. The current practice in that list is to read Article II, section 1 ("Before he enter on the Execution of his Office") to mean that the oath is required before he can perform the duties of the office, but that he holds the office immediately. John Tyler, the first VP to assume the Presidency, believed that a new oath was not necessary, but that the oath he took as VP was sufficient. However, because some did not accept him as President but merely as a caretaker acting President ("His Accidency"), he chose to have the oath administered, and that practice has been followed ever since. YBG (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the section link so that this will be included in the previous discussion, which I didn't see until after I had reverted the edit and added a new talk section. YBG (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Calvin Coolidge. 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:

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) 02:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Calvin Coolidge. 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:

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) 19:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Rusnak and Polsky

The "References" section mentions works by "Rusnak" and "Polsky", but these are not listed in the "Works cited" section. The script User:Gadget850/HarvErrors.js is great for catching this kind of thing. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. I'll try to figure out what they mean, or else source it to another text. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
they're in the "presidency of coolidge" bibliog: Polsky, Andrew J.; Tkacheva, Olesya (Winter 2002). "Legacies versus Politics: Herbert Hoover, Partisan Conflict, and the Symbolic Appeal of Associationalism in the 1920s". International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. 16 (2): 207–235. Rusnak, Robert J. (Spring 1983). "Andrew W. Mellon: Reluctant Kingmaker". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 13 (2): 269–278. Rjensen (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I don't know how they got misplaced. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"The business of America is business".

In the lead we have this line: "Coolidge is popularly known for the misquotation, "The business of America is business"." It's not only unreferenced, it's a redirect page back to Calvin Coolidge. Is this necessary at all? Can we remove the wikilink and add a reference instead of making it an unnecessary link? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I'll remove it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Mention of bodyguard

User:Nostout offered the following in the 1928 election section: "Richard Hart (Al Capone's brother James Capone using an alias) served as Coolidge's bodyguard during Coolidge's stay in the Black Hills," citing The Big Con: Great Hoaxes, Frauds, Grifts, and Swindles in American History as a reference. I reverted this contribution because it detracted from the flow of a discussion of Coolidge's decision on whether to run for a second term and because it seemed to be an interesting trivia item about a one-time visit to South Dakota that had no real impact on Coolidge or his legacy. What do others think? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Too trivial for mention in article. Too trivial for a talk page discussion. 32.218.35.132 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Works Cited

Hi all,

I think the Works Cited section is badly categorized. The Scholarly sources subhead implies—especially to non-fluent/native/proficient English speakers, younger people, and nonacademics—that the other two same-level subheaders are not scholarly. And actually, some of them aren't scholarly at all, by definition. For example, Bill Bryson's book[1] is just a nonfiction biographical monograph. It isn't scholarly at all, and I mean that in no way as a criticism of the author. Here's the New York Times[2] talked about it in terms of trade publishing. Not a lot of scholarly works are reviewed in the Sunday Book Review. I don't really trust that entire section now (there's generally a reason to use either the notes and bib style/Vancouver or author-date style. Not both.)

I propose that the Works cited section be gone through and sorted into "Scholarly sources, "Popular sources," and "Primary sources" (the latter being Coolidge's own writings). I'm happy to do it if no one else would like to. I would prefer to get rid of it and either incorporate them as numbered references/notes or put them under "Further reading."

Notes
  1. ^ Bill Bryson, One Summer: America, 1927, https://lccn.loc.gov/2013016041
  2. ^ Kevin Baker, "In Full Swing," New York Times, November 22, 2013, https://nyti.ms/2jOaHHr.

Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I understand your concern, Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions, but it would seem to be a burden on a contributing editor to decide whether a given reference is a "scholarly" one or a "popular" one. I would suggest three categories: "Biographies of Coolidge", "Other", and "By Coolidge". Any biography of Coolidge should qualify as scholarly and achieve the standard that you seek. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I can appreciate hesitation, but I think since Wikipedia is a reference work seeking the same standards as any other, the distinction between the two kinds is fairly easy; perhaps the word "scholarly" is throwing us off? After looking at your contributions (Your work on the entries for Helen Hartness Flanders and Freya von Moltke are wonderful, and not just because the articles are about women. You'll have to forgive me, I just quit my job at an "academic/scholarly" book publisher so I might be tripping over jargon without realizing/maybe we're not disagreeing? Respectfully, though, I'm going to have to disagree with you that any biography should qualify as scholarly. One summer: America, 1927 (the book I mentioned) is simply not a scholarly work. It is a reliable source and may have scholarly aspects (though I haven't read it myself, but I'm sure it does). However, is not on the whole scholarly. Along the lines of what you suggest, why not just make an alphabetical bibliography without sections and duplicate a few of them in the "Further reading" section? There's not a lot of reason in breaking down the Bibliography into sections when there are not pages upon pages of references. I hope you're having a beautiful Vermont Memorial Day weekend! Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
In my schema, Bryson would have gone into "Other", since it doesn't mention Coolidge in the title. You might look at Ralph Flanders, another project of mine. There it's simply "Ralph Flanders" and "Others". With that as a model, we could alphabetize all non-Coolidge references "academic" or not, as you suggest. I think that it's still useful to collect the primary sources. So, it might be "About Coolidge" and "By Coolidge". If you wish to be bold with that idea, I'm on board! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a wonderful idea that works well for these sort of articles. Bibliographies-BreakfastOfChampions (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Short article?

I was going to comment on how short the lead was compared to most presidents' leads, then noticed the whole article is pretty short. In terms of bytes it's the second shortest article on a president, ahead of only Zachary Taylor. This seems odd for an article on a guy who served a term and a half as well as held several other political positions. A featured article at that. Is there a reason for this? Was his presidency just not all that eventful? Lizard (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Spam in the Lead

The lines "Nobody cares what " liberal scholars" think. They've caused the issues this country is facing. Calvin was da Man, especially according to HOTD." in the intro are pretty obviously spam, are unsourced and should be removed.

Intrepid628 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

First speech over radio?

The article includes the factoid that "Coolidge's speech was the first presidential speech to be broadcast over the radio." This Politico article says that Warren G. Harding was "the first president to have his voice transmitted by radio;" however it notes specifically that Coolidge gave "the first presidential radio address." I'm wondering if we should add a note or tweak the wording of this article to make it clear that Coolidge wasn't the first president to be heard over the radio, though he did give "the first presidential radio address." Orser67 (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That tweak makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I believe that I have captured the above in the article. Thanks for the suggestion. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Scholars have ranked Coolidge as a below-average president

Occasionally the sentence in the lede, "Scholars have ranked Coolidge as a below-average president.", gets called into question. This is to clarify who the scholars cited in the references are:

DAVID GREENBERG is a professor of History and of Journalism & Media Studies at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, .... Calvin Coolidge (Henry Holt), a biography for the American Presidents Series, was published in December 2006 and appeared on the Washington Post’s list of best books of 2007.
  • Robert Sobel (February 19, 1931 – June 2, 1999) was an American professor of history at Hofstra University and a writer of business histories. He wrote:
Sobel, Robert (1998). Coolidge: An American Enigma. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub. ISBN 0-89526-410-2.

I hope that theses sources properly justify the lede's sentence. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It does not really add any information, you could go on most presidential profiles and say the same thing Ooftoday (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment here, Ooftoday. It's a point worth debating. In your edit comment you asked about whether the same type of statement should be made, regarding Bill Clinton or Barak Obama. According to the rankings by scholars, depicted in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Scholar survey results, Clinton received three third quartile rankings out sixteen—the rest were second and first quartile ratings—and Obama received one first quartile and four second quartile rankings out of five rankings, whereas Coolidge received only third and fourth quartile rankings out of 21 rankings—clearly placing him below the median.
Of course, half of all presidents ranked by a given scholar will fall in the third or fourth quartiles. Aggregating all scholars, who have ranked presidents, makes the characterization more complicated. Later presidents have been part of an overall ranking by fewer scholars.
A legitimate question would be whether this type of mention should appear in the articles of other presidents; if so, should it be only when the ranking was lower than the median? Perhaps that discussion belongs at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Presidents or Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Worst Gulf Coast Disaster

The Section titled 'Flood Control' says "Coolidge has often been criticized for his actions during the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, the worst natural disaster to hit the Gulf Coast until Hurricane Katrina in 2005.". I believe it should specify that it was the costliest as opposed to 'the worst'. The 1900 Galveston Hurricane claimed many more lives than the Flood of 1927 did, however, the Flood did cause much more economic damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKaiser716 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

President Calvin Coolidge's pygmy hippo, Billy, should be a part of his Wikipedia page. It's a great fun fact for any child doing a report on him in school! 174.130.20.219 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The request pertains to Billy (pygmy hippo). HopsonRoad (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bill the pygmy hippo has a great page that some information could be added here although perhaps a new section could be added to include this such as "personal life". George W. Bush has a subsection of "Family and personal life" although Donald J. Trump has an entire section dedicated to "Personal Life". Perhaps this could be added here in addition to other information that could be found in regard to Coolidge's character and other personal details.~RosarioFreedom

Page Layout

If you view this page with javascript disabled and a window of around 1500px wide or more, all the images, quoteboxes, and infoboxes stack up to make an astounding amount of whitespace in the middle of the Vice Presidency section. Perhaps this is a problem with the layout engine itself, or perhaps it just can't be fixed without removing content or messing up narrow windows - I would've experimented a bit, but the page is protected.

Anyway, if someone comes up with a good idea to improve it, or passes my complaint to the appropriate place, they'll have my thanks. 173.79.250.114 (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I work for the Coolidge Foundation and the External Link, supposedly to our website, on the Calvin Coolidge biography page is not the link to our website. Please change the hyperlink attached to "Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation" to be attached to the following URL https://www.coolidgefoundation.org/ Thank you! 2601:14F:4400:5655:9D51:88A5:D609:7A79 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Date of ascendancy to the presidency

Various editors have switched the date of when Coolidge became president between the day Harding died and the date, when he was sworn in (a day later). The question is whether he was president at the moment of death or only after being sworn in? Here is what Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Vacancy and disability has to say on the matter:

Further information: United States presidential line of succession

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
(Note: This clause was partially superseded by the 25th Amendment in 1967.)

As of this writing, I have reverted an edit, based on the assumption that the VP becomes president at the moment of the president's demise, whether he/she is aware of that change of status, or not. What do others suggest?

HopsonRoad (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

In the lead, please change "is heavily praised" to "is highly praised", or simply "is praised". 2001:BB6:4713:4858:894F:3749:9A76:D201 (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Coolidge assigned blame for Fed actions

Unless I'm mistaken, Federal Reserve is generally thought to operate independently (with notable exceptions) of US political arms since creation, yet the final sentence of this article's introduction section suggests Coolidge is responsible for actions by a nominally (at least) independent organization. While possible Coolidge pressured Roy Young or the Fed Board preceding the FOMC otherwise, the cited source does not suggest what is claimed by this article. 98.30.198.208 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right that the source never suggests that Coolidge was responsible for the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. Additionally, the author's conclusion that the Federal Reserve was responsible for the crash also seems to rest on his interpretation of Bernanke's Essays on the Great Depression, which should probably be cited directly instead. I'm going to remove the final sentence for now, though as this is probably a contentious topic it might be worth an RfC? LetsEditConstructively (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2023

In photo captioned "Coolidge with his family", change (1900) to (circa 1915). https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-politician-and-later-the-30th-president-of-the-news-photo/3087711?adppopup=true 50.113.45.42 (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calvin_Coolidge/Archive_1&oldid=1253570215"