Talk:George F. Edmunds

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George F. Edmunds article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections / Vermont Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as High-importance).

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Request for consensus on article addition[edit]

@Total random nerd: wants to add the following passage to the Edmunds article:

"Although considering himself devoted to the principles of the Republican Party, like most congressional "Half-Breeds", Edmunds staunchly supported civil service reform that would result in a racist bloated bureaucracy favored by many Democrats."

I consider the "racist bloated bureaucracy" comment to be extraneous to the body of the Edmunds article, even if it's true and reliably sourced, which I doubt.

Does anyone else care to offer an opinion so we can build a consensus one way or the other and avoid an edit war?

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me elaborate a little on why I think the addition proposed by TRN isn't accurate or needed: TRN says civil service reform would have resulted in "a racist bloated bureaucracy favored by many Democrats." But the dispute over civil service reform was in the REPUBLICAN Party.

Republican Stalwarts favored the spoils system.

Republican Half-Breeds favored civil service reform and a merit-based selection and promotion system.

Republican Mugwumps were so opposed to Gilded Age political corruption that they were willing to support Democrats if necessary to reform the government.

The only place Democrats factored in to this longstanding debate was with respect to how committed the Mugwumps were to changing the system.

Billmckern (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The civil service reform debate was not limited to Republican Party factionalism. Many, if not most of the Democrats advocated civil service reform to end social advancements for blacks spearheaded by Stalwart Republicans, as highlighted in the Vox article I cited in the page. However, some Democrats at the time opposed it. My general understanding is that the intraparty Democratic rift over civil service reform would also become a class issue, attributed to the fact that raising requirements for government jobs prevented economic patronage benefits towards poorer constituencies. Also, in Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution: 1863–1877 by Eric Foner, p. 507 highlights the anti-black racism associated with civil service reform. –trn ^{(debate me)} ^{(my accomplishments)} 22:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Total random nerd: Your addition, if it's true (which I'm not convinced of), might belong in an article on civil service reform. But commentary on what Democrats thought or believed or were motivated by certainly doesn't belong in an article about a Republican senator who was taking a position on an issue for reasons that were important to a faction of the Republican Party.

I notice that you've also been salting other articles with "white supremacist racist Democratic Senator Allen Thurman" comments -- the article on Chuck Schumer, for example. In my view, that's ridiculous and those comments should be reverted. A connection between Thurman and Schumer is tangential AT BEST, and more likely simply irrelevant. And labeling THURMAN this way in an article about SCHUMER is definitely irrelevant.

Billmckern (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion of inserting these details into articles about civil service reform. I will do that. –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 01:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Total random nerd: Your most recent reply causes me to question if you're acting in good faith. I'm prepared to submit this issue to a dispute resolution noticeboard.

Billmckern (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billmckern, I am simply a Wikipedia editor who seeks to expand content about American politics of the Reconstruction and Gilded Age eras. WP still lacks sufficient information about crucial aspects of the late 1800s in a number of articles. –trn ^{(debate me)} ^• ^{(my accomplishments)} 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Total random nerd: If this is true, then you might be justified in adding your comments about civil service reform to ONLY the article about civil service reform. Comments about what Democrats may have believed about Civil Service Reform have no place in articles about Republican politicians and the dispute between the Republican Stalwart, Half-Breed, and Mugwump factions. That's just shoehorning.

Billmckern (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]