Talk:Nicholas Biddle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ultimate self-sabotage[edit]

Should point out that Biddle took actions to prove that his bank was important to the US economy -- actions which in the eyes of the bank's opponents amply and fully proved all their accusations of sinister influences and arrogant autocracy. AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all historians agree with that point of view, and Wikipedia upholds the neutral point of view in historical articles. [1]--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we strive to maintain a neutral point of view in all articles. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the accusations were important in the politics of the time -- Biddle pretty much unilaterally caused a financial crisis as for the purpose of demonstrating how important the Bank was, and in doing so he played right into Jackson's hands, politically... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Govan, Thomas Payne (1959). Nicholas Biddle, Nationalist and Public Banker, 1786-1844. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Missing information[edit]

The section on his early life starts out in the middle of a sentence. Can someone figure out where the rest of the section went, and fix it? --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was this edit by User: Now reverted and IP warned. – ukexpat (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get some citations on the "Legacy" section?[edit]

I have never heard of anyone dividing history up into pre- and post-Biddle eras. Google didn't turn up anything besides this article, so I'd like to see some citations or remove it if it is vandalism. (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I wondered if that could be a joke when I read it? (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it was initially added back in 2009 as the third edit of Crchambers89, whose first and second edits were both vandalism. Several IPs have since reinserted the section in some form or other e.g., which refers to "Pre-pre-pre-Biddle". -- (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from The Money Masters[edit]

Some of the text in this page is identical to the script of The Money Masters (a movie on the history of money and banking). For example, "Biddle was arrested and charged with fraud; he was later acquitted. He died soon after while still involved in civil suits." Jra (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they both have the same source? (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this transcript of the movie on, the corresponding quote to the above is "Biddle was later arrested and charged with fraud. He was tried and acquitted, but died shortly thereafter while still tied up in civil suits." -- (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"three currency" what?[edit]

In § The Bank of the United States (emphasis added):

This rather sudden contraction of the country's monetary base after three currency and rampant speculation based on debt led to the financial "Panic of 1819".

This noun phrase no head; this sentence no sense.

--Thnidu (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of President Madison's ordinal[edit]

Someone erroneously described President James Madison as the fifth President, when he was in fact the fourth. [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2020[edit]

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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– There are only two blue links at the disambiguation page, and, of those, the financier is the primary topic pbp 12:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Suggested revisions starting May 2021[edit]

Hello everyone, I would like to propose some improvements to this entry. There are several new books that have come out in the last few years that cover Biddle extensively. These include books by Jane Knodell, Stephen Campbell, Mike Trapani, and Cordelia Frances Biddle. Books by Jessica Lepler and Andrew Browning also touch on issues in which Biddle was a key player. Content from these books should be added to the main entry, Notes, and Further Reading sections. Walter B. Smith's study from the 1950s, while dated, also has some valuable information on Biddle that should be included. I would also like to address and hopefully ameliorate the admonition at the top of the page calling for more inline citations. There are some factual issues and differences of historical interpretation that I would also like to address. Going into detail on all of these matters would make this entry long, so for the time being, I am merely proposing improvements.

I have a decent amount of publishing experience with Nicholas Biddle and have looked at dozens of his letters. I would, therefore, like to take a central role in making these improvements but importantly, I would like to avoid the rancorous and acrimonious disputes that sometimes erupt with these types of changes. So how can I do that? Steviebill83 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Steviebill83[reply]

Hi, Steviebill83, It's great you want to work on this article! Display name 99 is currently blocked from editing. Nobody is 'in charge' of any given article and it doesn't seem that anyone is super active in editing the article right now. You should be clear to start working on the article, though be careful that you remember Wikipedia policies such as that every claim must be cited to a published, reliable sources (preferably secondary). If you have specific questions on the nitty gritty of editing, do feel free to ask (I'd recommend at the teahouse, but I will be watching this page). Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eddie! :) Eddie891 I will start work on this either tonight or in the next few days. When I make edits I will try to justify my reasons clearly. The first series of revisions I will work on will be adding to the Further Reading Section. That should be relatively uncontroversial. Steviebill83

@Display name 99:, I know you were in charge of similar Wikipedia entries in the past. Assuming your account is active, are you in charge of this one? If not, do you know who is in charge of this entry? Maybe to avoid editorial wars, the best approach for me to take is to work gradually as you once suggested? Steviebill83

Update: The improvements are coming along nicely in my view. I have added more in-line citations and more secondary works. I have heard that it is common, and even recommended, to list improvements on the Talk Page before making them. On that note, I would like to propose another section of this Wikipedia entry that deals with Biddle's career at the United States Bank of Pennsylvania after 1836. Biddle took some measures that supported the expansion of land, cotton, and slavery in the South. Indeed, he speculated in cotton during the Panic of 1837. Campbell, Kilbourne, and Smith have written about these trends. (talk) (UTC) Steviebill83 (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Steviebill83[reply]

I have another suggestion for an improvement that should make the entry more coherent and organized. Currently there is a section called "Ancestry and Early Life" that talks about Biddle's ancestors and relatives. Yet there is also a section called "Family" later on in the entry. I think the discussion of Biddle's relatives (Charles and Edwards, for example), should be put in the "Family" section. In other words, the discussion of Biddle's family should all be in one section. I am happy to work on this. Steviebill83 (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Steviebill83[reply]

The entry is getting better. One of the things I notice is that the Further Reading and Secondary Sources sections are not standardized. In my view they should have uniform structure (i.e., they should all have a title, URL link if possible, an ISBN, etc). I am happy to work on this. Steviebill83 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Steviebill83[reply]