Talk:H. Edmund Machold

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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).
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

New York (state) Mid‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vs Al Smith[edit]

It is a rather dubious claim that Machold "successfully" opposed Al Smith's attempts to reorganize the state bureaucracy, since Smith in fact succeeded in this venture. Anyone have any thoughts? Remclaecsec (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says that "as Speaker" (1921-1924) he "opposed successfully", that means that Smith succeeded with his plans only after Machold lefty the Speaker's chair. In fact the re-organization was enacted in 1926. Certainly it might give the wrong emphasis to the thing, if you consider Smith the good guy and Machold the bad guy, meaning that the re-organization was necessary or successful per se. But there might be controversy about that, if you think that the abolition of two statewide elective offices (treasurer and State Engineer) and the henceforth appointment of a third (Secretary of State) was anti-democratic. Feel free to reword, if you like. Kraxler (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]