A fact from Samuel Tilden 1876 presidential campaign appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 October 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the "Democratic nomination fight" section, a reference is made to Hendricks' "support of soft-money" contrasted with "Tilden's hard-money stance." These two terms mean quite different things today than they did in 1876. "Soft money" in politics refers to non-federal campaign contributions. I presume that in this context, the distinction is instead to fiat currency (soft) vs. representative money (hard). I don't want to edit in those links myself, since I don't know for sure, but I think would be helpful to other readers to have links in place.
Kelseymh (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have tagged the linked article from "Buttons and Ballots" because I have suspicions that this source is not reliable enough to adequately support the rampant speculation that is included. I will check back and consider removing the material unless evidence to the contrary is provided. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
