Talk:Calvin Coolidge/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Calvin Coolidge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Served as" vs. "was"

Chrisahn, I reverted the use of "served as" before seeing your request, stating: "We're using "served as" in tens of thousands of articles about office holders of all kinds. Please discuss before making such changes." I suggest that "was" is straightforward, simple and consistent with WP:TONE, whereas "served as" is an example of MOS:PUFFERY, no matter how often it is used. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Amen. "Served as" sounds like they really wanted someone else but had to settle for him. "Along one wall, stacks of milk crates served as bookcases." E Eng 06:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Very funny. This type of distorsion could be made with practically any word, especially if it has many uses (try with « was »). « Serve » is of current use in this context, and it is more precise and less static than just « was ». I see no "puffery" in precision.--Sapphorain (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

My point was completely serious, even if made with a hint of amusement. There's no extra "precision" in served as over was. I have no idea what you mean by try with « was ». E Eng 08:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Serve as is completely standard usage to describe someone holding an office. I see it as conveying the context of performing a service or a duty. Used in this sense, it is not in any way akin to what is described in the MOS under "puffery". Eric ^talk 23:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

But we don't need to convey that they're performing a service or duty. We only need to convey that they held the office. In some cases, e.g. Trump, conveying he performed a service or duty is downright counterfactual, and that's a good illustration of why we should stay away from such flourishes. BTW, I'd say HopsonRoad missed the mark by citing PUFFERY; it's much more like Elegant variation. E Eng 03:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: I support using "served as" over "was" simply because it is currently in widespread use on politicians' articles and it would be too tedious and time consuming to fix all of them when there are better things to work on. If it was the other way around, then I would support using "was". I honestly really don't care about the wording, but if you want to use "was" on this page, then it should be on every other page for consistency. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Consistency is the weakest of arguments. Without deviation from the norm progress is impossible. E Eng 03:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: but why would we even need to deviate from the norm in this case? "Served as" is completely fine language. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Served as..." is the better option, as I mentioned at the Donald Trump intro, concerning former US presidents & former US vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The reasoning you provide is compelling. E Eng 03:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on "served as" vs. "was" (both have pros and cons), but we should be consistent. In the last five or ten years, the phrase "served as" has become the de facto Wikipedia standard for most office holders (politics, business, law, etc.) from all over the world – it's used in tens of thousands of articles. Now an edit war over "served as" has broken out, and it currently affects all articles about US presidents (starting at Donald Trump). Who knows how far it will spread? We have long and detailed sections in the Manual of Style about the first sentence of an article, e.g. in MOS:OPENPARA and MOS:OPENPARABIO. I guess we'll have to add a statement to these sections (after a proper debate, of course) about whether or not to use "served as". That would be the best way to settle the matter. This talk page is not the right place to decide a question that affects so many other articles. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Consistency is by far the weakest possible argument. Articles don't have to be the same. If you want to create a standard then propose it for MOS. E Eng 03:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Consistency is actually a very good argument. It's the main reason why we have the Manual of Style. But I agree that a proposal for an MOS recommendation would be in order. I just didn't have the time to start one yet. And as I said, this talk page is not the right place to debate this MOS issue, so I probably won't add any further replies. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got it backwards: MOS is there to show editors the relatively limited cases where consistency is desirable; everything not in MOS is up for grabs, article by article. See WP:NONEEDNORULE (which -- conflict-of-interest disclosure -- I wrote). E Eng 06:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, you've got it backwards: The MOS exists to maintain consistency. That's the point. But I guess we're talking past each other, focusing on different aspects of consistency and/or the MOS. And this is getting a bit off topic, so let's just agree to disagree. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, as the primary architect of a major piece of MOS [1] I can assure you you don't understand. You seem to be arguing that where MOS provides that articles should all do something in one particular way, we should do that, and that where MOS doesn't provide that articles should all do something in one particular way, we should do it anyway, just because. It makes no sense. Where MOS is silent, editors decide for themselves on each article. E Eng 08:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, even as the primary architect of a major piece of MOS you still misunderstood what I was saying. I'll try again. You said: « Consistency is by far the weakest possible argument. » I say: Consistency is actually a very good argument. If consistency really was as irrelevant as you say, you wouldn't have thought twice about the guillemets I used there, and we wouldn’t need most of the MOS. But we do have a pretty detailed MOS, and it specifies a consistent style for all kinds of things, down to apostrophes, quotation marks etc. That’s a good indicator that Wikipedians do care quite a bit about consistency. That was the whole point. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What MOS says is what MOS says, and served as vs. was isn't in it. If it's not in MOS then what's in other articles matters only to the extent that discussion about that article might lend useful arguments that can be borrowed for the discussion of the present article; the mere fact that another article happens to be a certain way has no weight at all. When you have more experience you'll understand.

I don't know what the guillemets have to do with anything. E Eng 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Why then, have you been adding "was.." to the intros of so many former US president bios? Aren't you trying to add consistency? GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think was is the better option because it is straightforward. The MOS:ROLEBIO currently has "was" in the examples listed. However as others have pointed out, served as is widely used in Wikipedia too. Making widespread changes to either of these for consistency will be a tedious job and needs consensus. Unless anyone wants to debate this in MOS or start an RfC in the village pump for making widespread changes, I suggest we maintain the status quo as was for this article. AVSmalnad77 ^talk 06:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The status quo for this article is "served as". That's what is has been since February 2019. It's only been changed to "was" a few days ago. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

While I'm glad you agree that was is better, you share the misapprehensions of others here about Wikipedia process. The editors gathered here, on this article's talk page, decide what best works for this article, independent of others. The repeated appeals to consistency are an attempt, unwittingly, to invent a MOS provision that doesn't exist. If article were supposed to be consistent on this point, MOS would say so. So far there are (on the one side) the powerful point that was is simple and direct, and on the other side the fallacious refrain that articles have to all be alike, how much trouble it would be to change them all, and so on. The latter are nullities. Articles don't all have to be alike and we don't have to change them all. The topic here is this article, only. But I've got other fish to fry, so I'll leave y'all to it. E Eng 08:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is to thank everyone for engaging here! Firstly, this is not such an important issue that whatever is decided here has to be implemented in other articles. I appreciate the term of art argument for "served as". The only question in my mind isn't what's best for other articles, which would be a job for Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics to decide, just what's best for this article. I suggest that simple and direct is supported by WP:TONE. I don't see any MOS-type support in the discussion above for being wordier than necessary. I only see an argument that "we've done it many times before". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum 1: MOS:ARTCON only requires consistency within articles, not between articles. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum 2: WP:STATUSQUO informs us, that until and unless there is a consensus otherwise, we should not revert away from the status quo ante. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Some here & on other former US president bio articles hav been replacing "served as..", with "was..". Are they not attempting the very thing they oppose, promoting consistency. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, replacing a fussy circumlocution having an undesirable overtone with a straightforward statement of fact. No one's opposing consistency, simply pointing out that consistency is a very weak consideration. I said I wasn't going to bother with this discussion further, but I felt your ~~silly distortion~~ misapprehension required correction. E Eng 18:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Very well. But please, don't bother replacing "served as..", with "was.., again. At least, not until you get a consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Good day to you as well! E Eng 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I've amended the wording because it repeats the error, common in such articles, of implying that he was the 30th President only in the period that he was serving as president. He remains and always will remain the 30th president, and I've re-structured the sentence to reflect that. Deb (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn Noticing that you've recreated the error. I'll remove that additional "and" for your benefit. Deb (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat understand your concerns, but I reverted your edit because it didn't actually make the sentence more clear or correct. After your change, it said he was the 30th president, which, as you correctly pointed out above, is not quite correct – he still is (and always will be) the 30th president. Also, the repeated "and" broke the flow of the sentence. We could try to say he is the 30th president, but then we'd have to restructure the sentence, which would make it longer and more complicated. In general, the term "served as" isn't perfect, but it seems to be a good compromise between several goals that are partly at odds with each other (we want a clear and concise first sentence, we want to use "is" for living people but "was" for those who've died, we want neutral wording, we want to correctly convey the facts, etc.). I think that's why we're using "served as" in tens of thousands of articles about all kinds of office holders (government, business, law...). — Chrisahn (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Chrisahn It doesn't seem like you do "understand my concerns", because you have reintroduced the error, implying that he was only the 30th president between the years mentioned. He continued to be the 30th president after those years, and he is still the 30th president. I will try re-phrasing yet again, but I can't accept leaving this error in the article. Deb (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I misunderstood your concerns. Your changes don't make any sense to me. You claim that "served as" implies that he only was the 30th president in those years. I think you're mistaken here – "served as the 30th president from 1923 to 1929" simply means that he was president in those years. That doesn't even imply that he wasn't president later (he could have served another term), and it certainly doesn't imply that he doesn't remain the 30th president. But now you've introduced a second sentence saying "he was the 30th president", which actually does imply that he isn't the 30th president anymore. More precisely: The word "was" often implies that something isn't the case anymore. The wording "served as" simply implied that he isn't serving anymore.

In a nutshell: You've taken a sentence that was OK and replaced it by two sentences that are actually wrong. Instead of removing an error (that didn't exist) you've introduced an error.

But I don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR, so I won't revert the error you've introduced again. I hope that others who have the page on their watchlist will take care of it soon. Bye for now. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Deb and Chrisahn, I don't like using "was the 30th president", if we claim that he still is. How about tying the lede sentence to the next much debated one, as follows: "[Calvin Coolidge]...was an American lawyer and politician, who became the 30th president of the United States in 1923 and served until 1929"? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Done Seeing no pushback, I implemented the above suggestion, per WP:BOLD. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I still think "served as" would be fine, and I feel "became ... served until" is longer than necessary, but it's certainly more precise and probably a good compromise. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, Chrisahn. The new version lost eight characters, compared with the old, and placed the main aspect of notability in the lead sentence, apropos of MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

...but it's 13 characters longer than the "served as" version. But it's a good compromise anyway. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

This edit request to Calvin Coolidge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(born John Calvin Coolidge Jr.; /ˈkuːlɪdʒ/; July 4, 1872 – January 5, 1933) was an was an American lawyer and politician who served

to

(born John Calvin Coolidge Jr.; /ˈkuːlɪdʒ/; July 4, 1872 – January 5, 1933) was an American lawyer and politician who served

There is just a double was an was an in the sentence. Steinliiippp (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor Steinliiippp:

done, and thank you very much for your good catch! P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 08:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

This edit request to Calvin Coolidge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

He is the only president to be born on July 4. 69.213.236.138 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

This edit request to Calvin Coolidge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Does not need protect anymore since he was not very known Oasis goy | Bruh 18:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Either way i did not learn who Coolidge was untill I was 20. Oasis goy | Bruh 18:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear why it needs protections but he was a republican President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oasis goy (talk • contribs) 18:05, July 14, 2021 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Video

Why does the video say Coolidge was the 29th President instead of the 30th?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

This edit request to Calvin Coolidge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Though Calvin Coolidge was sworn in August 3, his presidency started and his vice presidency ended on August 2 because that's when Harding died so please change August 3 to August 2 on each.Presidentialpower (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)