Talk:Bull Moose Party

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kitaferd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bull Moose Party

Shouldn't the title be the Bull Moose Party with the official name mentioned in the first paragraph rather than the other way around? Every history book I've ever encountered - and large parts of this article - refer to it almost exclusively as the Bull Moose Party. From the first paragraph, you don't even get a sense that the "nickname" was important. I would obviously be in favor of this change, but wanted to know what everyone else thinks before changing a title.

Regardless what it is "commonly known as", its official name is the Progressive Party, and this is how encyclopaedias and dictionaries work. Bull Moose redirects to it, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4032:8700:E5ED:2044:125:7F25 (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

proof that Roosevelt elected Wilson

Where is the proof that Roosevelt elected Woodrow Wilson, by "allowing him" to win with a plurality of the vote? What definitive sources with EVIDENCE believe this? Also, the article cites some who said Wilson would have won 1912 anyway. I want a citation.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If the claim in the article that Roosevelt won 4.1 million votes is correct, then that could easily be taken as evidence in support of the Wilson-wins-because-of-Roosevelt thesis. The only I would check is whether or not anyone has done a breakdonw of the Roosevelt vote to judge how much of it came from likely Republican voters and whether some Democrats may have cast a vote for him as well. If we assume that all of the votes cast for Roosevelt came from the traditionally Republican electorate, then that sets down an argument that Wilson only won because of the division in the Republican vote created by Roosevelt. If half of the Roosevelt votes came from the Democratic electorate, then one can assume that Wilson would have won anyway. Does anyone know of any studies done on the electorate which voted for the Progressive Party which would tell us something about which of these possibilities is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.87 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Roosevelt's statement was "I feel fit as a bull moose"

Should be called 'Progressive Party (United States, 1912-1916)

The article's title should reflect the fact that it existed for 4 years. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

i messed this up, sorry.

then the undo could not be undo. i just wanted to make an indented quotation. sorry to the editors! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Electoral History / In congressional elections" show 1912 as Taft being the President?

After all, Taft was President through all of 1912's election campaign, indeed all of 1912, not Wilson. Wilson wasn't President until March 4th the following year. 2001:8003:4032:8700:E5ED:2044:125:7F25 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a line that says:

Progressive Republican leader Robert La Follette had already announced a challenge to Taft for the 1912 Republican nomination, but many of his supporters shifted to Roosevelt after the former president decided to seek a third presidential term, which was permissible under the United States Constitution prior to the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment.

The twenty-second amendment would not have stopped Roosevelt -- he only won one term as President, in 1904. He gained the Presidency from the assassination of McKinley, much in the same way Johnson did from Kennedy, and Johnson was eligible to run in 1968 but he chose not to. I'm going to fix this in the text, but since I expect it to be reversed out by someone ignorant of the US Constitution, I'll leave this here as the record of the truth. 2001:8003:4032:8700:E5ED:2044:125:7F25 (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Progressive Party (United States, 1912). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919221256/http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/880426-196/daily-twip---theodore-roosevelt-delivers-campaign.html to http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/880426-196/daily-twip---theodore-roosevelt-delivers-campaign.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It still exists

In Vermont the progressive party is alive and well. It has a few seats in the legislature. I would update it to say it still exists Steakismeat (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Steakismeat: Same name, different party  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Third party.

Was it a third party? It was a solid second party in the 1912 presidential election. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

no it did very poorly in 1912 in races for Congress & legislatures. it quickly collapsed & vanished. By contrast the 2 main parties of 1912 are going strong in 2018. Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This party still exists

A website for the Progressive Party shows that this is still an active party, which claims direct lineage from the party of 1912

https://progressivepartyusa.com/

Should the article be updated to reflect the Progressive Party's status as a current party, or should a new article be made for this modern party?

Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

nope. it's repeated claim about 1912 is false. no reliable secondary source accepts the claim. this operation claims to be a modern charity --its website = "The Progressive Party is a non-profit, tax-exempt, 501(c)(4) charity " and charities cannot be partisan. The IRS does not have a charity of that name says https://www.guidestar.org/search All the RS say the Prog Party of 1912 died out. -- this group keeps its secrets--no names, no officers no email no address. and ridiculous claims about 1912. very dubious. Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

position of the party

In the political position of the party it is mentioned that it is a centre-left to left-wing party which is in fact completely false. You see, progressivism in the US back then had nothing to do with today's progressivism and could even be described as liberal conservatism in today's world. So I am suggesting that the position of the party is changed from the one mentioned before to Centre to Centre-right. Alexispapp (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This article from NPR would seem to disagree with your assertion that there's a big difference between progressives of 1912 and 2020. It never explicitly places the Progressive Party anywhere on the political axis, but it does use Theodore Roosevelt as its lead picture and concludes by placing progressives (lower case 'p') "to the left of center". I think we need a better source to say for sure where the party belongs, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think TR was on the left in 1912--like most of his leading supporters. 1) John Cooper argues for a continuity from TR-1912 to FDR's liberal New Deal: "National self-sufficiency and centralized economic direction characterized the views of [Franklin} Roosevelt's most important advisors in 1933 and 1934. In personnel and inspiration the New Deal at its onset marked something of a Theodore Rooseveltian restoration." [John Milton Cooper, The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt (1983), p 350.] 2) Likewise Eric Alterman argues that "TR’s conception of “new nationalism”—the slogan for his run in 1912 as the candidate for the Progressive Party—also reflected a radical rethinking of liberalism, from which his younger cousin would later draw." Alterman in 2012 Rjensen (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Progressives back then supported extending the industry though, which can be described as a right wing policy in today's world.

Alexispapp (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Tdr also once suggested that "we must stave off socialism" . I'm trying to send you to articles proving that but it indicates "error, edit not saved" can someone explain to me how to do that:) Alexispapp (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

TR opposed the socialist party of Debs because it sought to destroy capitalism and private property. he did not oppose government owenership in all cases. Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Some sources describing them as right-wing. [1] [2] [3] [4] Zyxrq (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Dissolution

The article says that the party dissolved in 2020 but doesn't provide a citation or expand on the party's dissolution in any section. Can someone provided well-sourced information on how (or if) the party came to an end?

Flameoguy (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Dissolution

The article says that the party dissolved in 2020 but doesn't provide a citation or expand on the party's dissolution in any section. Can someone provided well-sourced information on how (or if) the party came to an end?

Flameoguy (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Progressive Party (United States, 1912–1920) → Bull Moose Party – Easily the WP:COMMONNAME. Ancient mumbling ignorant of that policy does not contested consensus make. Remsense诉 01:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. Remsense诉 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Support According to the 5 criteria.

Recognizability: Yes, because this was the popular name of the party

Naturalness: As it was the popular title, "Bull Moose" might be more useful than one of many "Progressive parties"

Precision: Yes, distinct title

Concision: Yes, short enough title

Consistency: Yes, similar to the "Know Nothing" party which was officially known as the "American Party" Zemmiphobia007 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. As an analogy, we don't call Turkey Türkiye even if the WP:OFFICIALNAME is technically Türkiye. Prodraxis _(talk) 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support per the above. One of the great political names of the 20th century. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.