Talk:William Jennings Bryan/Archive 1

Untitled
Actually, single line breaks does keep the paragraphs together on the actual page (regardless of what it looks like on the Edit page). Wikipedia does not recognize a paragraph break until you put in a double line break. Using the single line breaks for every sentence makes it much easier to compare versions. See the discussion of newlines on Wikipedia: How to edit a page. (Note: I learned the hard way that the single line breaks rule does not apply when you are in a bulleted list or an indented paragraph.)  Rossami 14:30 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Jennings
Not sure whose bright idea this was, but I have never heard anyway besides Wikipedia call him simply "William Bryan" - he is pretty much universally referred to as Willian Jennings Bryan". I think we should revert to that.

Under Background found: worshipedb he sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.49.137 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Scopes Trial Comment
Notice this line in the article: ''Bryan was exhausted by the trial, especially his examination at the hands of Clarence Darrow who, in an unusual move, called Bryan to the stand and ridiculed the Great Commoner for his lack of scientific knowledge. ''

This seems like completely false history taken from the notoriously inaccurate Inherit the Wind. Bryan had prepared a long closing speech, which was his real purpose for participating in the trial, and was still prepared and able to give it. However, Darrow used a procedural move, by refusing to give a closing statement for the defense, Bryan was not allowed to give his prepared speech for the prosecution.

To my knowledge, there isn't the slightest historical exidence that Bryan was "exhausted" by the trial at all, but that he died as an untreated diabetic, as the next line in the article accurately states. Any comments before I correct this? Carltonh 16:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Having posted his message, I cannot find any evidence that Carltonh ever carried out his intention.

Having said that, the points he raises are entirely accurate, AFAIK.

For example,Professor Edward Larson (Summer for the Gods) records that, following the end of the trial on Tuesday July 21st (i.e. within a matter of hours) Bryan released a series of questions to the defense lawyers about their religious beliefs. He made himself available for several interviews the next day, and began revising the speech he had planned as the closing statement for the prosecution for use as what Larson refers to as "a fiery stump speech," and on Friday he drove to Chattanooga to get the editor of the Chattanooga News to publish the revised version. On Saturday he drove from Chattanooga to Winchester, Tom Stewart's home town, to deliver his speech for the first time, stopping along the way at the town of Jasper, where he delivered part of the speech to an audience of more than 2,000. The audience for the full performance in Winchester was larger than that, though Larson doesn't give a figure - ballpark or otherwise.

He then returned to Chattanooga and worked well into the night on the galley proofs of the newspaper version of his speech.

I propose to edit the relevant section of the text to say that opinions featured in the newspapers of the day were divided on the effects of Darrow's interrogation, but that Bryan's activities between the trial and his death do not support the claims that he was exhausted.

Rather than go into all the detail above I propose to simply include a reference to the relevant section of "Summer for the Gods".

I welcome any and all comments on this proposal.

Eric 10:33, October 1, 2005 (UTC)

Changes made 14:56 October 10, 2005 (UTC) hllo my anme is Sara james —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.189.124 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering about the tone of this section specifically "He was asked questions with no known answers, such as the population of China 5,000 years ago (which the Bible does not address) and if the fish in the sea were drowned in the flood. The questions were designed to force him to admit that he did not know, or to guess wildly, or to add questionable explanations to things of the Bible." There is a very good wiki page on the Scopes Trial which deals with this in a less partial sounding manner so I wonder about the need to include this here. My understanding was that one of the motivations for the questioning was to show that the Bible does not provide an adequate literal version of the history of man, rather than to make WJB look bad. I'm also not sure about saying Scopes 'went free' following the state Supreme Court ruling - to my mind it implies that he was under threat of imprisonment, rather than a modest fine. I haven't edited as I thought I would see if anyone is still actively involved in this page first and I am also far from a scholar on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobolaffsson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1896 Democratic Primary
In the William Jennings Bryan article, it says:

"In the presidential election of 1896, Bryan defeated incumbent president Grover Cleveland to win the Democratic party nomination for president."

and in the Grover Cleveland article, it says:

"Cleveland ran for the Democratic nomination in 1896, but the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan."

BUT, in the U.S. presidential election, 1896 article, it says:

"Incumbent President Grover Cleveland's declaration that he would not seek a third term left a wide open Democratic National Convention, and at just 36 years old, Nebraska's William Jennings Bryan filled the void"

This information seems contradictory, does anyone know which is correct? Jason 01:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've corrected this article, neither is true, Cleveland did not run at all in 1896 and endorsed, tacitly, a second gold-standard Democrat ticket.


 * Cleveland's position in 1896 is not as clear as it could be. This is one of the cases where the public image that Presidential candidates "do not seek the office but are drafted to it" (regardless of the real intention in private) can leave confusion on simple questions like this.


 * Talk:United States presidential election, 1896 and Talk:United States presidential election, 1896 have discussed this. In summary there were no primaries in 1896 so the nomination was entirely settled at the convention. When the convention assembled it was clear that the pro silver forces overwhelmingly controlled the convention as shown by the platform adopted. Any Cleveland candidacy was clearly unviable and his name was not amongst those considered. However both New York and New Jersey delegations abstained during the roll calls and had Cleveland been proposed they would almost certainly have voted for him.


 * A little clearer is his support - he give silent backing to the National Democratic Party, a shortlived Gold Democrat body. Timrollpickering 15:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pacifism
Bryan must have gotten over his pacisfism that caused him to resign as Secretary of State if he volunteered for World War I, in which U.S. involvement began when he was in his late 50's. Any insights into this? Rlquall 00:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite so: Bryan never espoused pacifism in the sense that say, Jane Addams did. He did indeed work hard for world peace, but he demanded war in 1898 and reluctantly supported war in 1917. He also supported the US military intervention in Mexico while he headed the State Department. Rjensen 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Grape Juice Diplomacy"
It was a known fact that Bryan's dedication to Prohibition was so complete that he refused to allow any alcoholic beverages to be served at diplomatic functions while he was Secretary of State, something which led to even wider crticism of the U.S. by Europeans than usual as being a land of unsophisticated bumpkins. Does anyone think that this belongs in the article? Rlquall 00:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

boxing/vandalism?
Is the suggestion that Bryan boxed a kangaroo vandalism, or is that the truth? And if it is the truth, where does one find this info?
 * It is vandalism ... google search on "William Jennings Bryan kangaroo" turns up nothing to support claim. I have reverted it. --Rogerd 05:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This was added again, and there still is no evidence to support it, so I reverted it --Rogerd 01:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Slight POV Concerning Scopes
This sentence is slightly POV even though it's technically true:


 * Frank suggests that Bryan's fight was really against Social Darwinism, a theory that many perceive to go hand in hand with Darwin's theories.

The only people who would perceive Social Darwinism and Darwinism as going hand and hand are people who are unfamiliar with Darwinism. It's like saying "the theory that time travelers from the future live amongst us goes hand in hand with the theory of quantum mechanics." (Because QM doesn't distinguish between forward and backwards movement in time.) Social Darwinism is discredited by almost every proponent of evolution today. Although this was not true during the time of the scopes trial. Most biology texts back then did tacitly teach Social Darwinism alongside Darwinis, which is where the confusion came from. But today the suggestion that they go "hand in hand" is ridiculous, and would only be found today in anti-evolution propoganda (As opposed to reasoned arguments, of which do exist), and is therefore, perhaps unintentionally, POV. I reworded it accordingly as such:


 * Frank suggests that Bryan's fight was really against Social Darwinism, a theory that many unfamiliar with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection perceive to go hand in hand with Darwin's theories.

I don't think this is as much POV because it is a fact, as much as it is possible for facts to exist about theories, that Dariwinism does not imply Social Darwinism (which saying they go "hand in hand" is tantamount to), even if Social Darwinism relies on Darwinism (which is a completely different proposition), and this is clear to anyone who understands Darwinism whether they agree with it or not. --Brentt 08:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I understand the point you are making, I wonder if your edit has actually obscured the very valid point that you make here - that in 1925 many people did think that Darwinism and Social Darwinism went hand in hand. In fact this was a contributory factor, I suggest, in the rise of the eugenics movement during the first three or four decades of the 20th century.

I suggest that a more useful edit would be:


 * Frank suggests that Bryan's fight was really against Social Darwinism, a theory that many people in '20's America believed went hand in hand with Darwin's theories.

Eric 17:55, October 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Bryan did not speak out against eugenics, which was supported by many social gospel ministers like himself, as shown by Kazin bio p 289. He did vehemently attack both Darwinism (evolution) and neo-Darwinism or social darwinism (which he thought had captured the German mind and caused WW1). Rjensen (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaning?
Anyone care to tell me the meaning of the term 'wet ethnics' (in prohibition, etc.)?
 * wet = oppose prohibition and favors allowing sale of beer, wine, liquor. Dry = supports prohibition. The Germans were a "wet" ethnic group (and a large one). In general Catholics were wet.  Rjensen 08:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That clears up quite a bit. 10:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In summary...
I think that the quote presented as a sort of summation of his political career (a quote so recent as this year) is not a good choice:


 * legacy remains complicated. Form and content mix uneasily in Bryan's politics. The content of his speeches . . . leads in a direct line to the progressive reforms adopted by 20th-century Democrats. But the form his actions took—a romantic invocation of the American past, a populist insistence on the wisdom of ordinary folk, a faith-based insistence on sincerity and character—lead just as directly to the Republican Party of Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

My problem with the above quote is that I think the last line is not something most people or political scientists could agree on. How on eath did Bryan's style 'lead. . . directly' to the present presidency? I just don't see a connection and I wonder whether Wolf was affected unduly by present politics to make statement that is otherwise nonsensical. The connection between Bryan's style and Rove's is hardly direct if it exists at all. While there may exist similarities between them, a connection does not. Is there perhaps a better summary quote from a biographer? Srnec 16:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the evaluation by a leading scholar in the NY Times should be included whether or not people agree with its interpretation of Bryan--he was a controversial figure after all. Why is the commentary nonsensical??? Many people have noted the map of Bryan's support is strikingly similar to Bush's map 100 years later. Both men are noted for injecting populism and religion into political rhetoric, and appealing to evangelical audiences in the same style, which I think is what the author had in mind. He does no say the POLICIES are the same--he says the rhetorical style is similar. Rove of course has many times said he was a student of 1896. Rjensen 03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying it may have a place. I am denying that its a good summation. Firstly, by "nonsensical", I simply meant that it makes no sense to me. Secondly, when you say "Both men are noted for injecting populism and religion into political rhetoric, and appealing to evangelical audiences in the same style," you make my point. Their is similarity, but not direct leading from one to the other. I am not saying the policies are the same. Thirdly, if many have made this same connection, why not quote them or reference them as well? Finally, I know that Rove is a student of Mark Hanna, but of Bryan? Even if so, it is hardly right to say that Bryan then "leads just as directly" to Bush. No, then its proper to say that Bush's campaign studied Bryan. Bryan leads to the Democratic progressivism directly in that the Democratic party which enacted related progressive legislation was largely a creation of Bryan's influence: there is continuity between Bryan and those Democrats, but not between Bryan and the Republicans of today. My objection hinges on the phrase "lead just as directly".

I only object to this phrase as a good summation of Bryan's legacy. Srnec 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * in dealing with a highly controversial figure like Bryan it's unlikely you can get a meaningful evaluation that everybody agrees to. If an editor sees  different evaluations by comparable scholars then they should be added, but please don't remove any analysis. (The author quoted is a prominent liberal Democrat so his goal is not to praise Bush) Kazin likewise is a well-knon liberal Dem.  The author uses the new Kazin bio to say the Bush rhetoric is part of the heritage Bryan represented (that makes sense to me). (He also clearly says Bryan's policies lead to current Dem policies).  Bush majored in US history and took Blum's course at Yale that emphasized Bryan's rhetoric. Bush also studied debate at Yale with Osterweis, anoter historian of US politics, and read Bryan speeches. Rove likewise has read a lot on 1890s.  So the links are in place--it's not merely coincidence. (Compare very different rhetoric of Clinton, Gore, Kerry-- do they sound more like Bryan or does Bush?) Rjensen 05:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My objections are not partisan. I only think that Wolfe misuses the phrase "leads directly". I think that that implies some natural connection, as in a "line of descent", that is, the style of Bryan influenced the development of the Republican party. But even you seem to agree that it has not. You seem to say, and I agree, that Bush and Rove themselves may be influenced as students of Bryan's style. This is quite different from the way (and Wolfe implies that it is the same) that Bryan influenced the development of the Democratic party. Am I making sense? Srnec 05:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not write Wolfe's lines-- but he is a leading commentator and reviewing the most important bio in the leading newspaper. That carries a lot of weight.  If some authority disagrees wiki can report that, but so far I have not seen any scholar disagree on this point. Rjensen 05:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the job of Wikipedia editors to write the articles. By using Wolfe's comments as a summation, we use his writing to do our job. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does leave open the quotation to debate over its appropriateness. I think that Wolfe's language is not accurate and thus I object to presenting his quote as a good summation of Bryan's legacy and influence. But, because I cannot provide a better quote, I will not change it. Finally, note that I am not opposed to Wolfe's lines appearing somewhere, just not where they do. But as long as it is presented as only Wolfe's opinion, I guess it doesn't matter much. Srnec 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki editors did all the writing, and use quotations from scholars to nail home complex points. That is, the quotations show the opinions currently held by scholars, which I think is very useful when dealing with highly controversial politicians. Rjensen 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, at times (not often) we quote people to allow them to explain a point where there explanation is not really controverisal. That is, there are times when we do not write something ourselves but use a quote to express it instead&mdash;similar to the way a historian may simply segue into a quotation of a chronicler instead of describing an event in his own words. I think the Wolfe quote was used largely as a summation of Bryan's legacy because it was simple and eloquent. Srnec 03:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it seems to me that it's kind of lying to the general public of the world not to explain more clearly just exactly _why_, and just _how_ fiercly W.J. Bryan opposed a private american central bank like the federal reserve, isn't it?

dishonest is the first word that leaps to mind...

being mediocre or in "the centre" of politics is supposedly somehow being objective now?

just because you omitt serious criticism now its suddenly somehow more objective because you dont thread on the toes of the right wing?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492

exerpt:

Propaganda from the Middle of the Road The Centrist Ideology of the News Media

By Jeff Cohen

There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."

When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"

It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs.

Center Not "Dead": It Moves

The journalistic center is not inert. It moves. It shifted slightly leftward in the mid-'70s in the wake of Watergate when reporters were allowed greater latitude for independent inquiry. In the '80s the journalistic center veered strongly rightward.

The two main establishment papers -- the New York Times and the Washington Post -- are the primary propaganda organs of the center, though editorially they've tilted rightward throughout the '80s. As soon as Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in 1981, for example, both papers began promoting White House charges that the Soviets were the primary source of terrorism in the world. Despite some conservative positions, however, the two papers are best seen as organs of the (corporate) center.

(exerpt)
 * Bryan approved the Federal Reserve bill of 1913. Rjensen (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Denomination
I had initially noted that, though Bryan was baptized in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, but as an adult, he left Cumberland to join the Prebyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA). I notice that someone has changed this to say that Bryan joined the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA). I am altering the article to revert to my former position for reasons I will explain:

The UPCUSA was not formed as a denomination until 1958. It was formed by a merger of the PCUSA and the United Presbyerian Church of North America (UPCNA).

The UPCUSA merged with the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) in 1983, and the new denomination took the old name of Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA).

To clarify the matter, therefore, from a historical perspective, there are two PCUSAs: the first was subsumed in the UPCUSA in 1958. The second was created in 1983. But Bryan was clearly a member of the first PCUSA, and since the first PCUSA has direct genealogical ties to the second, and currently-existing, PCUSA, I think it's only proper to identify him as a member of the PCUSA.

If some ambitious soul wished to write an article differentiating the pre-1958 PCUSA from the post-1983 PCUSA, that would, of course, stave off any future confusion, but I'm afraid that I personally don't have enough time or knowledge to write that article.

Freemasonry
One of the pieces of trivia I know about Bryan is that he joined a Masonic Lodge (Lincoln Lodge, #19). Given the focus of the article on Bryan's political career, I am unsure of how this fact should be introduced. Is it appropriate for the Trivia section? --User:phkenyon 16:29, 23 Nov 2006 (UTC)

^I think this is important, Jennings Bryan was one of the key opponents of the Federal Reserve System. Interesting because you would think this would make him a proponent of Big Government.

Vandalism
Check out the History page. That's a ton of vandalism, and it's mostly by the same guy. 64.121.36.5 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow, a lot of school kids make it here. The page has had partial protection applied to it to try to stem the tide. Mdwyer 23:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

competing causes of death
The article claims at one point that Bryan died of diabetes, at another that he died "of a stroke due to the heat and exhaustion of the trial." Neither statement is sourced. Anyone have a reliable source to settle this? --Allen 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed both competing claims. --Allen 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Related?
William Jennings Bryan resembles Peter Boyle. Is there any blood relationship? -Yancyfry 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Scots-Irish
This isn't the first time someone made such an edit. I can't find any source that backs it up. Comments? Imagine Reason (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Matterhorn
"In the Democratic landslide of 1890...overwhelmed in the Republican landslide." Can we get a little less avalanche & a few more specifics? Like, for instance, who he beat/lost to & by how much? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  07:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern
is Bill O'Reilly the new WJB after our crisis? Instead of listening to all sides, he yells at all sides and blames all of them for not telling him that the markets crashed. Bill-O is also out of touch on social issues like WJB was, and would be anti-Darwinist too if it was more popular

Postal Service???
"The GOP ran its campaign on the benefits of the Roosevelt administration, creation of a postal service, continuation of “Sound Currency”, citizenship for Puerto Rico inhabitants, regulation on big business, and tariff revision in protectionist mode"

Is someone actually suggesting that TR created the Post Office? Or that there was no Post Office during the Election of 1908? Doug O&#39;Connell (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wizard of Oz references?
This passage:

"By far Bryan’s greatest inclusion into media and pop culture would be during the race to be the 25th President of the United States of America, through L. Frank Baum's writings. The Wizard of Oz would be published during the 1900 Presidential Election, and can be considered a reason as to why William Jennings Bryan did not win the election that year. We can see this by deciphering the allegorical messages throughout The Wizard of Oz, in which William Jennings Bryan is portrayed as the cowardly lion, who ventures throughout the story with an "all talk and no action" state of mind, which had become a widely popular theory of Bryan during the 1900 election. Though Bryan is portrayed as cowardly, the story is not a completely negative dissertation on his character, it was more so a Populist’s reaction to the behavior of a political figure who often favored both sides of different parties."

...doesn't cite any sources. I am also curious about the language "We can see..." Sounds like it was copied-n-pasted from an analysis somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhudkins (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in an AP US History class and the Wizard of Oz reference to WJB was brought up by the teacher multiple times. I don't know if it is a reason for his loss in the election but it is an accepted analysis of him by historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.182.231 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't universal by any means. This section should be reworded conditionally, and should be accompanied by citations. - Stuthehistoryguy (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Cowardly Lion theme is taught in hundreds of economics and history courses at the college level, and there are many citations. I added one. Rjensen (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has also been quite thoroughly debunked by many recent scholars; a good example may be found at http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/Populism.htm. The Oz elements should at least be softened, as there is clearly not a consensus that Baum had Bryan in mind at all.  This is especially true for the statements under "Popular Image", which need a thorough rewrite and appropriate citation. Stuthehistoryguy (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "debunked"?? not true at all. as Parker (who was cited as avidence for this) asked, "should we forget the whole notion of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a parable on Populism? That would be a big mistake." An old (1964) article on the topic by Littlefield assumed incorrectly that Baum was arguing in favor of Populism; he was actually a McKinley supporter who ridiculed Bryan. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because one can interpret the story to mock Bryan does not mean that it actually did. Scholars believe far and wide that the novel has zero political undertones other than those that we (the reader) put in it. By the end of the year 1900, only 21,000 of the novel were sold, Bryan lost by a far wider margin than that in the election that same year and I firmly believe that the Wizard of Oz reference should be completely removed from the article. Boone292929 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the short passage is based on a recent scholarly articled--and Wiki's job is to report what the RS say: John G. Geer and Thomas R. Rochon, "William Jennings Bryan on the Yellow Brick Road," The Journal of American Culture Volume 16 Issue 4, (Jun 2004) Pages 59 - 6 Rjensen (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Daily Show reference
Is a single sketch on the Daily Show really noteworthy? Maybe it's my own bias, but seeing that there alongside Steinbeck and Hemingway just seems bizarre to me. I'm tempted to delete it. Iglew (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason that there is a comment about the Daily Show reference is because Wikipedia democratizes information. Let's think about the demographic of people who are editing and reading the English version of Wikipedia. They're going to include popular cultural facts and information a lot of the time because it's more current and reactionary than your standard encyclopedia, like Encyclopedia Britannica for instance. Just look at the Abe Lincoln article. I think the section about his sexuality is significantly longer than some of his more significant policies and actions. I'm not saying this is good or bad (Wikipedia has been found to be nearly as accurate as Britannica and more accurate than Encarta), it's just the nature of a democratically and commons-based peer produced encyclopedia. Personally, as a history student I find the Daily show reference somewhat useless.Eli.zeldin (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the Daily Show reference. It's true that things like the Daily Show are popular amongst a large section of the population, but most of the little skits shows like that put on do not really make any lasting impression or contribution to the public consciousness or to any sort of worthwhile, thoughtful discourse. The anecdote mentioned is NOT like a famous Saturday Night Live impression of a U.S. President, nor is it like a Stephen Colbert running gag on Bill O'Reilly. Rather, the Bryan namecheck was only mentioned once, as part of a quick one-time joke. Hardly enough to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article, especially since the content of the gag is so reductionist that it's arguably incorrect, positing that only completely stupid people would ever find any value in William Jennings Bryan. The whole of his life reduced to "Oh he was like a redneck or something"? No, to include something like this would almost be like including incorrect erroneous or incomplete formulas from poor students' math homework on Wiki pages about mathematics. The Daily Show mention does not warrant inclusion here. It's far too flimsy. BTW, I believe in Darwinism, evolution and the whole lot, by the way--so I'm not acting out of political motives. 66.82.162.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC).

"Losing" the Scopes trial
The current version of this article says Bryan died 5 days after "losing" the case. I don't see how this can be a correct description, for two reasons:

(1) Bryan was not a party to the case; it was the people/state of Tennessee v. John Scopes. Bryan was a counsel and expert witness for the prosecution, yes -- but to the extent he is associated with the State, this bolsters my point, because:

(2) Scopes *was convicted* at the trial. I.e., the State "won." (The verdict was later reversed on a technicality on appeal, and the charge was not brought again.)

I suggest removing any suggestion that Bryan "lost," except (perhaps) in the court of public opinion -- and even that is probably a modern opinion more than a contemporary one (depending on the audience).

Legacy Section
Not sure if this has been covered before, but the final paragraph of the Legacy section seems to stray a bit from the neutral point of view guidelines:

"Bryan was truly one of the greatest speakers of his time, and he became a fixture of the Democratic party and a hero to the common man. He is normally not credited enough for bringing the Democratic party together to make it into the strongest it could be. Even though he only advocated for the rights of white men, he still could not stop his message from reaching all common people of the nation. Starting with his Cross of Gold speech, Bryan brought the populist party into the Democratic, and with his common man message he would inevitably draw the African-American and feminist vote into the party. Bryan became the bridge that brought different factions into the party, and paved for liberal democrats like Franklin D. Roosevelt with his New Deal legislation. He changed the tide of the party, and arguably the party might not be a party of the common people without him."

Perhaps it should be rephrased as something along the lines of: "Scholars generally agree that..." with proper references or the like? Or more explicitly tied into the point of views of Truman and Roosevelt in the preceding paragraph.

--Bruce (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Added C-SPAN Contenders link
I added this link:


 * "William Jennings Bryan, Presidential Contender" from C-SPAN's The Contenders

even though I saw the note about excessive links. I am of the belief that (even if not every link already there is needed) that this is a valuable and appropriate addition. Please let's discuss if you have a contrary opinion. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Jennings Bryan. 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/20090520091924/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/tennstat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on William Jennings Bryan. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historicaldocuments.com/HarrisonNarcoticsTaxAct.htm
 * Added tag to http://investorshub.advfn.com/~/Financial-Quotes-and-Info-13119/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127111953/http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/Sermons/deity.html to http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/Sermons/deity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)