Jump to content

Talk:William McKinley/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

copyvio

Again, 66.81.31.xxx , you have uploaded copyrighted materials, this time from [1]. It is (c)1994 Corbis Media. Please stop it. --LMS

first lady

The full maiden name of First Lady McKinley was Ida Saxton, but the linked article has her as Ida Saxton McKinley, so my change was obvious. --65.73.0.137

James "Big Ben" Parker

I think it's odd that there's no mention of this fellow in the assasination account, note that Parker is the African American fellow shown in the picture entitled "Leon Czolgosz shoots President McKinley with a concealed revolver" grabbing Czolgosz. Parker was considered something of a hero, and his actions prevented Czolgosz from firing a third and fatal shot.

Moved from article

Trivia

  • McKinley's portrait appeared on the U.S. $500 bill from 1928 to 1946.
  • At his inauguration, the only item of jewelry McKinley wore was his Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity badge that he received from Allegheny College.
  • After McKinley's assassination, the mandate of the Secret Service was altered to include protection of the president.
  • McKinley was the last U.S. Civil War veteran to be President.
  • A small area of McKinley's birthplace, Niles, Ohio, known as "McKinley Heights" is named after him.
  • McKinley was one of four presidents to be shot and killed by an assassin.
  • A major US military base in the Philippines was named Fort McKinley. It later became Fort Bonifacio, and is now a major real-estate development area called Bonifacio Global City. The major road leading from Ayala Avenue to its entrance is still called McKinley Road.
  • The house in which he died is now commemorated by a plaque which stands at the original place of the house. That plaque stands next to a parking lot for Canisius High School and Delaware Avenue.

McKinley Park Chicago

McKinley Park, a very lovely park, in Chicago Illinois is named in honor of President McKinley and should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.19.215 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Remotely Unlikely?

The sentence concluding Disputed Quotation makes no sense: "The conclusion of historians such as Lewis Gould is that it is entirely possible although remotely unlikely McKinley said the last part.[3]" What is remotely unlikely but likely.

Not a good use of the word "remotely" - if it were removed, the sentence would make a lot more sense. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

Damn he;s ugly. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.178.91 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Go Bears?

How does one get rid of that "Go Bears" comment below the policies? I went to edit the page to remove it, and it was not there, but it is still on the page itself.

More vandalism there in the first paragraph today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.20.68 (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Commemorative Services

I've added a source tag to the statement relating to the commorative services held in the U.K. I find it more than a little odd that the Anglican King of Great Britain would order a memorial for an assassinated U.S. president, who was a Methodist, to be held in a Roman Catholic cathedral. CanadianMist 15:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I fail to see your point here. I think it may, if you'll pardon me, be because you are expecting British people to behave like Americans. The things you are missing are:

  • Neither Westminster Abbey nor Saint Paul's Cathedral are Catholic, as you've said, both are Anglican. Don;t let the name "Abbey" fool you.
  • The denomination of the ruler of Great Britain is very fluid. She is only Anglican when in England. By law she changes denomination to Presbyterian when she goes to Scotland, for example.
  • In many countries protestant churches are in mutual communion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.64.1 (talk • contribs) 27 March 2011

If he had died just 3 days earlier...

Imagine, if McKinley died just 3 days earlier, what would the people and the media have thought, regarding the same day of our time? --Shultz 17:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC) hi

I don't think they would have cared as much... people tend to care more when someone is assassinated then when they just die... --The MasterPedia 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Talk

Agreed. My great-grandparents were married on September 11, 1911 and that's no big deal. The fact that a president died within a week of a date that will weigh heavy on our minds for another decade or two (ask the average person if they know the date of the Day of Infamy) is no reason to write a new section of a Wikipedia page. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

McKinley redirect

Because "McKinley" links to the disambiguation page I cleared out the "The name "Mckinley" redirects here..." etc. part.

Naufana 22:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle name

Does anyone know his? VolatileChemical 14:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Monuments

he sure does have alot of monuments doesnt he? its crazy because i didnt know there was one in muskegon! I live really close to muskegon, so thats really weird... ^-^ can you feel the sunshine? does it brighten up your day? 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, relatedly, is that list of monuments necessary? There isn't a similar section on the pages of any other US Presidents, and this one really is ridiculously extensive. I'm not seeing the relevance.81.178.140.206 (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Trivia, and Sensibility

What is meant by this sentence from the Trivia section? 

McKinley was the last US Civil War veteran to be President-beginning with 
Andrew Johnson {excepting Grover Cleveland}.

Apart from the misshapen parenthesis and the broken punctuation, what is it supposed to mean? I would have corrected the cosmetics, but I don't understand the intent. - Corporal Tunnel 13:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't mean much so I fixed it to say McK was the last veteran to be president. Rjensen 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - Corporal Tunnel 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Those anarchist assassins, I tell ya...

The very first paragraph ends, "He was assassinated by an anarchist and succeeded by Theodore Roosevelt." Would it not be appropriate to substitute Czolgosz's name for "an anarchist"? I think that that would have a more neutral tone, whereas the current phrasing calls to mind stereotypes of anarchy (murder, destruction, chaos, etc.). Czolgosz was a wanna-be anarchist anyway. Obviously, that's my opinion, which should not be reflected in the article, but a neutral POV should be. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

While many parts of the article are certainly not neutral, this one actually is. Strictly speaking, the term "anarchist" is correct in this context, but it is not referring to anarchy in the context that you are characterizing it.
The Anarchist movement is a philosophical movement based on the idea that acts of oppression are all derived from the ownership of private property. Since private property ownership is not possible with out a central government, the anarchist movement suggests that the solution is to eliminate the central government. Look up William Godwin for further explanation. Czolgosz was definitely an anarchist, and it was his commitment to this philosophy that motivated him to shoot McKinley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.45.10 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course shooting McKinley was a manifestation of his anarchist beliefs, but not all anarchists believe in senselessly murdering politicians. Godwin certainly didn't. Anarchism is very diverse in belief and philosophy, and naming an individual by the name of such a group creates a generalization. It's tantamount to saying, "He was assassinated by a Christian." Out of context, many Christians would take offense at that. Fortunately, John has come up with a compromise, for which I thank him. (Thanks also to Murderbike for the typo correction.) See also the section Assassination of President McKinley of the article on Emma Goldman for a discussion (in which I had no part) of Czolgosz's affiliation with anarchism or lack thereof. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [signed retroactively]

That's all true, but I want to note here that violence up to and including assasination as a way to influence the political process was a very popular idea among anarchists in the late 19th century, even if all of them didn't practice that extreme. I think a fair comparison would be to say how martyrdom was a very popular idea among early Christians; even though there are no real Christian martyrs today.
I also don't think if we were talking about a situation in a country divided by religion, that if a Protestant were assassinated by a Catholic, or a Muslim by a Christian; that it would be incredibly controversial to say that outright.
Just like I don't think if we were talking about Franz Ferdinand, it wouldn't be controversial to say Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Bosnian Serb.
It would only be insulting to say "he was assassinated by a Christian" if Christianity had little to do with the conflict that created the assassination.

So its not offensive because theres not many anarchists? Wow...brilliant >_> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.236.27 (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Baby, you can ride my car

Worth mentioning he was first President to ride in an automobile? (It was a Stanley Steamer, FYI.) Trekphiler 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Domestic Policy

This portion of the article is very poorly written, or was very poorly edited. I find it difficult to understand what's going on in a few places.

In Civil Service administration, McKinley took one long and unfortunate step backward. The Republican platform, adopted after President Cleveland's extension of the merit system, emphatically endorsed this, as did McKinley himself. Against extreme pressure, particularly in the United States Department of War, the President resisted until 29 May 1899.

What did the Republican platform endorse? And what did McKinley resist? Also, "long and unfortunate" doesn't sound NPOV

His order of that date withdrew from the classified service 4,000 or more positions, removed 3,500 from the class theretofore filled through competitive examination or an orderly practice of promotion, and placed 6,416 more under a system drafted by the Secretary of War. The order declared regular a large number of temporary appointments made without examination, besides rendering eligible, as emergency appointees, without examination, thousands who had served during the Spanish War.

2 very long sentences, the first should maybe be a list with links. What is classified service, etc?

Republicans pointed to the deficit under the Wilson Law with much the same concern manifested by President Cleveland in 1888 over the surplus. A new tariff law must be passed, and, if possible, before a new Congressional election.

What's the Wilson law, and are we suddenly in the past?

An extra session of Congress was therefore summoned for 15 March 1897. The Ways and Means Committee, which had been at work for three months, forthwith reported through Chairman Nelson Dingley the bill which bore his name. With equal promptness the Committee on Rules brought in a rule, at once adopted by the House, whereby the new bill, in spite of Democratic pleas for time to examine, discuss, and propose amendments, reached the Senate the last day of March.

???

More deliberation marked procedure in the Senate. This body passed the bill after toning up its schedules with some 870 amendments, most of which pleased the United State Conference Committee and became law. The act was signed by the President 24 July 1897. The Dingley Act was estimated by its author to advance the average rate from the 40 percent of the Wilson Bill to approximately 50 percent, or a shade higher than the McKinley rate. As proportioned to consumption the tax imposed by it was probably heavier than that under either of its predecessors.

Why is it only explained at the end of the paragraph what the bill is trying to achieve? And it's not really explained at all, except that it changes the "average rate" in comparison to the "Wilson Bill" and the "McKinley rate." What rate, and again what is the Wilson Bill? Presumably the same as the Wilson law mentioned above.

I don't have the knowledge to correct this article, but it should certainly be done. Miken32 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"In Civil Service administration, McKinley took one long and unfortunate step backward. The Republican platform, adopted after President Cleveland's extension of the merit system, emphatically endorsed this, as did McKinley himself." That McKinley's step was "unfortunate" is not a fact but one person's opinion. Arguably, a civil service employee could be a poor worker protected by rules preventing his/her dismissal, while a political employee might be excellent, motivated by the realization that he can be fired quickly if he doesn't perform. [User: dweinkrant]

19th Century techniques?

It seems odd to say "19th century techniques" in reference to an operation that occurred in 1901. I guess the techniques may have been developed in the 19th century, but they were occurring in the 20th. Maybe something like "the surgical techniques of the time" would be a better phrasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.246.219 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

telegraph?

The article states that "McKinley was the first president to have the use of telephones and telegraphs giving him access to battlefield commanders and reporters in mere minutes, and he used this to his full advantage."

He may have been the first to have the telephone available (though how far did this reach? surely not to Cuba or the Philippines?) But he was certainly not the first to be able to communicate with generals in the field by telegraph--Lincoln did so during the Civil War. Winterbadger (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Demand for war

"McKinley for months resisted the public demand for war..." This sounds like opinion to me. Is there any reference or citation for this? If not, I would argue it should be removed, or clarified. Doing some quick and light research it seems this "public demand" referred to was stirred up by members of congress and the yellow journalism of Pulitzer and Hearst. As written, the line seems to blame the general population with clamoring for war...would it be more accurate to call it the "press's demand" or "congress' demand"? Krizman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

member-elect to the 48th Congress

"McKinley was elected as a Republican to the United States House of Representatives and first served from 1877 to 1882, and second from 1885 to 1891." "He presented his credentials as a member-elect to the 48th Congress and served from March 4, 1883, until May 27, 1884. He was succeeded by Jonathan H. Wallace, who successfully contested his election."

Could someone elaborate on these two statements? I can not find any information on the "contested election" in either the Wallace article or the one for the 48th congress. What happened? Was he recalled due to a recount? 67.78.145.42 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The house where he died

I seem to remember the article mentioning the house where he died, and how it was torn down in the 1950s. It sat at the corner of a school parking lot and a number of children watched its demolition from the school windows. After the demolition the site was paved to expand the parking lot. What happened to this text???? And yeah, I AM going to need an answer on this. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. It was in the article about the assassination itself. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

After being shot, McKinley was immediately operated on at the Pan-American Exposition hospital. He was then taken to John G. Milburn's home, on Delaware Ave., in order to recover. Milburn was a prominent citizen of Buffalo, and was the President and nominal head of the Exhibition. His house, at the time, was essentially a mansion. Deprived of the possibilities that antibiotic therapy might have had on McKinley's prognosis and recovery (they had not been discovered or mass produced yet in 1901), McKinley died there a week later, ostensibly from gangrene. And yes, due to urban blight, the house was demolished in the 1950s. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Children

they do not say if he had any children —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.233.238 (talk) 28 April 2010

McKinley and his wife, Ida Saxton McKinley, had two daughters, Katherine, and Ida. One died in childhood and the other in infancy. Katherine was three and a half years old, and her sister, Ida, barely five months old. Both died over twenty years before McKinley became President. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Masonry

Was he a Mason? Drutt (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes - see section on military career. Hoppyh (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Clean up of images needed per WP:image

I have removed the following image to eliminate overcrowding in early life section. (File:William McKinley Sr.jpg|thumb|left|150px|William McKinley, Sr., father of President McKinley) Carmarg4 (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the following (poor quality) image of the home with an image of the wife - more significance. (placement of either of these would be earlier but no sufficient room) Carmarg4 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) File:McKinley home Canton.jpg|thumb|200px|The Home of William McKinley, at Canton, Ohio

I have removed the following image to eliminate overcrowding in the 1900 election section. File:William McKinley-head&shoulders.jpg|thumb|right|200px|President McKinley photographed by B.M. Clinedinst, circa 1900. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following audio file due to overcrowding.{listen|title=Campaign speech of 1896|filename=William McKinley campaign speech 1896.ogg|description=Phonograph recording of a McKinley campaign speech from 1896. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following image of the McKinley memorial - there is another, better quality image of this in the memorial section. File:Mckinleymemorial.jpg|Albumen print of the McKinley Memorial, shortly after its completion, ca. 1906–1915. Hoppyh (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the following image of Ida McKinley with one which more clearly depicts her. File:Ida McKinley.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Ida McKinley. Hoppyh (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced (with an improved one) the following image of Leon Czolgosz. File:Czol following day.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Police mug shot of Leon Czolgosz #757. Hoppyh (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the following image with a pic of the USS Maine in the Spanish American War section.File:McKinley Destroys Imperialism Straw Man.jpg|left|thumb|200px|McKinley fires a cannon into an effigy of imperialism in a 1900 Harper's Weekly cartoon. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The following image was removed due to overcrowding.File:Ful-McK-Cle.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice Melville Fuller administers the oath to McKinley. Ex-president Grover Cleveland to the right. Hoppyh (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following to eliminate overcrowding. File:McKinley's last address wide2.jpg|right|thumb|250px|McKinley's last speech delivered September 5, 1901 at the Pan-American Exposition. Hoppyh (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

List of memorials needs to be filtered to remove insignificant items

The list of memorials has grown out of control. I have begun by removing the following items. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC) McKinley Elementary Schools: Fairfield, Connecticut; Elgin, Illinois; Kenosha, Wisconsin; Toledo, Ohio; Marion, Ohio; Lakewood, Ohio; Fort Gratiot, Michigan; Port Huron, Michigan; Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan; Casper, Wyoming; San Diego, California;Bakersfield, California; Corona, California; Redlands, California; Beaverton, Oregon; Arlington, VA; Abington Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; Parkersburg, West Virginia; Erie, Pennsylvania; York, Pennsylvania;North Bergen, NJ Wyandotte, Michigan; Tacoma, Washington; Cadillac, Michigan; Poland, Ohio and Enid, Oklahoma. * McKinley High Schools: Washington, D.C.; Honolulu, Hawaii; Canton, Ohio; Niles, Ohio; Sebring, Ohio; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Saint Louis, Missouri (now McKinley Middle Classical Leadership Academy).

More items removed as follows. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Calle McKinley (McKinley Street), Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. McKinley Vocational High School, Buffalo, New York. McKinley Technology High School, Washington, DC. McKinley Parkway, part of the Frederick Law Olmsted Park System of Buffalo, New York. McKinley Mall]], Blasdell, New York (Southtown of Erie County, New York). William McKinley Junior High School, Bay Ridge, New York.File:500-2f.jpg|thumb|Series 1928 or 1934 $500 bill, Obverse|The $500 Bill with McKinley's portrait. McKinley Middle Schools:Racine, Wisconsin; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Flint, Michigan; Kenosha, Wisconsin; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and Albuquerque, NM. McKinley Highway: South Bend, Mishawaka, and Osceola, Indiana (formerly route of US20) McKinley Street: Waynesburg, Ohio, Dearborn, Michigan, Tacoma, Washington, Omaha, Nebraska, Phoenix, Arizona McKinley's, a cafeteria in the Campus Center building at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania, where President McKinley briefly attended as an undergraduate student.

More items removed as follows. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC) McKinleyville, California. McKinley, Maine. McKinley Statue, Dayton-Montgomery County Public Library, Dayton, Ohio. McKinley Statue, Walden, New York. McKinley Park, Chicago, Illinois McKinley Memorial, Redlands, California commemorates visit by the President. McKinley Monument, Antietam Battlefield, Maryland. McKinley Statue, Lucas County Courthouse Toledo, Ohio. McKinley Monument, Columbus, Ohio on the grounds of the Statehouse where McKinley served as Ohio's Governor. McKinley Statue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania outside Philadelphia City Hall. The $500 bill featured a portrait of William McKinley. McKinley Park in Soudan, Minnesota: a state park and campground named in his honor. Obelisk that was created to honor a visit from McKinley in Tower, Minnesota. McKinley Mezzanine: Albany Law School of Union University, Albany, NY. McKinley Neighborhood, Minneapolis, Minnesota Fort McKinley Manila, Philippines renamed Fort Bonifacio but now a redevelopment called McKinley Hill.

Philippines quote needs more cites

I have moved the following comments about the quote on the Philippines as it lacks specific citations. Hoppyh (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) McKinley was a religious person but no other observer or reporter heard McKinley say God told him to do anything. McKinley never used the term "Christianize" (and indeed it was rarely used by anyone in 1898). McKinley operated a highly effective publicity bureau in the White House and he gave hundreds of interviews to reporters, and hundreds of public speeches to promote his Philippines policy. Yet no authentic speech or newspaper report contains anything like the purported words or sentiment. The man who supposedly remembered it – an American Civil War veteran – had written a book on the war that was full of exaggeration. A highly specific quote from memory years after the event is unlikely enough – especially when the quote uses words like "Christianize" that were never used by McKinley. The conclusion of historians such as Lewis Gould is that, although it is possible this quote is legitimate (certainly McKinley expressed most of these sentiments generally), it is unlikely that he spoke these specific words, or that he said the uplift and civilize and Christianize them, part at all.For a discussion of this question, see Gould (1980), pp. 140–142.

Article improvement project

I'm starting to beat the drum to "make the Presidents blue" (that is, make them all FA). This one needs work. I'm going to start by improving Mark Hanna but hope to get to this by the end of the year.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Wehwalt. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Article improvement project

I'm starting to beat the drum to "make the Presidents blue" (that is, make them all FA). This one needs work. I'm going to start by improving Mark Hanna but hope to get to this by the end of the year.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Wehwalt. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Info Box

I think McKinley's info box needs to include his congressional service. This is how it is done for other President pages. The problem is that he served for many years but kept changing congressional districts, because back then they redistricted more often. So that makes the infobox very long. Which leaves three options - 1) Let it be long and follow the convention for other Presidents 2) the status quo which leaves off the time in Congress or 3) Just have one set of data for his time in Congress and somehow deal with the 2 years he was out of office. I prefer 1, but I'm interested in what others think. If you go back through the history you can see where I did this, before it was undone, to see what it looks like. volcycle (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to do it in a collapsable manner?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd just as soon leave it out. Infoboxes are getting too huge, to my mind. But if there's consensus to add it, I agree with Wehwalt that it ought to be collapsable. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii

This article makes it sound like Hawaii wanted to be annexed and was annexed rightfully. Pro-American sugar businessmen illegally took over the government for the sole purpose of having it annexed to America to avoid sugar taxes and after creating their own government in Hawaii, they repeatedly requested the U.S. to annex Hawaii. They did not have popular support of the Hawaiian people and were illegally supported militarily by U.S. marines who landed there under the pretense that they were defending American lives and property, but in truth American lives and property were not being threatened, and the sugar businessmen were simply forcing themselves into power with the help of U.S. military. The Kingdom of Hawaii and Queen Liliuokalani did not approve of annexation at all. The 1893 Cleveland-Liliuokalani Executive Agreements between both countries agreed that Hawaii was illegally taken over and should have had its kingdom's sovereignty restored. This was completely ignored after McKinley went into office and signed the annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.141.226 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Hawaii annexation information in the article needs to be clarified, expanded, or modified. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, Hawaii will have its place, as we work on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
We can avoid the POV revisionism by sticking to the facts. there was a revolution in 1893 that overthrew a brutal ("I will behead them all" she promised) Queen who wanted to repudiate constitutional monarchy and become a dictator. All the major countries of the world recognized the new government of the Republic of Hawaii. The "popular support of the Hawaiian people" never existed--the Queen certainly did not hold elections and by 1898 the old Hawaiian population was outnumbered by newcomers. The issue was partisan in the US --Democrats opposed annexation because they did not want any Asiatiac citizens in the USA, and Republicans wanted to expand in the Pacific. (The terms of annexation made all Hawaii citizens regardless of race into US citizens--and for the first time they had voting rights.) "illegally taken over" is called a revolution -- most countries in fact have them sooner or later. (One is going on in Syria right now, and last year Libya & Egypt etc had one.) Rjensen (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure we can find a happy way to phrase all this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
as far as president McKinley was concerned. there was a government in operation in Hawaii that was recognized by all the major powers. The old Queen had been overthrown and no one paid her attention. It was threatened by a possible takeover from japan. It strongly wanted annexation to the US (for military protection and for access to the US sugar market) The Democrats strongly opposed annexation of Hawaii (and the Philippines) because they did not want Asiatics. The Republicans were much more liberal on race and wanted an empire, hence bases in Hawaii. The Democrats blocked a treaty (needed 2/3 vote) so the Republicans voted annexation by resolution (50% vote), just as texas had been annexed by resolution in 1845. They offered citizenship to all citizens of Hawaii (most of them non-white) and set up elections. The heir to the old throne Prince Kuhio was elected as a Republican to Congress in 1902. Rjensen (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Lets avoid jingoistic claims that the imperialistic annexation was justified on moral grounds. The US wanted a naval base, the planters wanted to rule the islands. The Marines were sent in. An early example of US "gunboat diplomacy." See [2], [3], [4] . Edison (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
And the planters would not have won the next election. And there were claims that Japan was flooding the island with immigrants as a prelude to takeover. Let us find a way to phrase this neutrally and briefly, that doesn't have to go into all of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
[outdent] when McKinley took office there was a Republic of Hawaii that was legally recognized by every government in the world. (all revolutions are "illegal" according to the person being overthrown--did we not see that last year in Libya, Egypt etc? ) But Hawaii is 1897 was beyond the "illegality" allegations. Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Please spare us "The Brutal Queen was gonna Behead Everybody" propaganda. "Illegality" aside, it was blatant imperialism, and a takeover on behalf of Dole and the non-Hawaiians, by "sending in the US Marines" and "running up the US flag" because the US wanted the islands for a coaling station and naval base. McKinley endorsed it, after his predecessor did not. Do not bring in irrelevant comparisons to 2011-2012 revolutions in Libya and Egypt, please, unless McKinley has somehow come back from the grave and regained the presidency. Edison (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Civil rights section rewrite

I believe the Civil Rights section needs more context, particularly in African Americans fighting or stationed in the Philipines and Cuba. Black soilders were disappointed that McKinely helped other citizens around the world but did not send in the military to help protect blacks in the South. Gould (1980) is a good source on McKinley and the African American race. The current block quotes do not give extensive or needed historical context. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The presidency section will be entirely rewritten. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Coemgenus, I respect your talent and ability to write Presidential articles. I am on a time limit and I got the Gould (1980) book from a local library in order to edit the McKinley article. Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia and I take to mean multiple editors can edit an article at any time frame. That is what makes Wikipedia unique and exciting to edit. I understand that editors can take control of an article for limited times to make major edits. Any editor can modify, nullify, or delete any edits made when neccessary and under any appropriate circumstances. I currently plan on rewriting the Civil Rights section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please go ahead, CMguy777 and edit the civil rights area. I also have Gould, and I'll doubtless make changes, but I'll take care to respect your work and of course you'll be here to look on and comment. I planned to mine Gould's book, esp pp. 153 thru 160, noting that part of the reason for his actions was his desire to conciliate southern whites and finishing up quoting Gould "McKinley lacked the vision to transcend the biases of his day and to point to a better future for all Americans"."--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt. I used the word "appeasement". I am not sure the difference between "appeasement" and "conciliate". Maybe "conciliate" is a better word. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem. I try to avoid "appease", it is such a loaded term. I agree, conciliate very much suites McKinley's style.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the word "appease" to "conciliate" in the article.  Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Civil Rights section currently looks good. Thanks Wehwalt and Coemgenus for valuable contributed edits and improving the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I still plan to play with the Spanish American War paragraph, there were certainly issues with how the black soldiers were treated as they came from the West where they were normally posted to Tampa. Also, the Phillipines issue. This was unquestionably not McKinley's finest hour.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked quotes

These McKinley quotes and source are good and sections can be incorporated into the article without blocking. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


same speech 1889:

(1885 speech p 172)

the problem with the quotes is they are pre-presidential. In 1889 the GOP in the North & McKinley did support a civil rights program for blacks but it was defeated in Congress. After that the issue faded away and did not much appear in 1896-1901 McKinley speeches. Rjensen (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree under President Harrison, McKinley did support civil rights. I have taken the quotes out of the article. McKinley, as President, was hesitant concerning African American civil rights. Harrison was more proactive concerning Civil Rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That's true. McKinley mouthed the right things, especially when confronted with a delegation of blacks at his front porch in '96. He did not walk the walk as president. Cmguy, would you be willing to work with me on the civil rights section? I intend to be fair.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I am willing to work with any editor Wehwalt. I believe that understanding McKinley's civil rights agenda, or lack of agenda, gives a fair impression of 19th and early 20th Century America's racial values. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Cmguy: I didn't mean to suggest that you shouldn't write it. When you wrote "I believe the Civil Rights section needs more context" , I thought you were just pointing out how bad it was. All I meant by my response was that I agreed, and to inform you that Wehwalt and I were going to re-do the whole thing. If you want to jump in on the Civil rights section, go for it. I didn't mean my comment to come across an objection. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That is fine Coemgenus. I felt that the Civil Rights section needed immediate attention. I expect any edits I have made to be modified or improved. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How should article include modern scholarship?

[ex rjensen talk page]

You are, of course, correct, but using terms like "Third Party System" (it's article says it's a term used by historians and political scientists) is too technical for the first paragraph of a lede. And there is no particular need to source them, I'm not questioning your word, merely trying to phrase things in a way which will be most effective for the lay reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

the lay reader comes here to learn things--in this case standard terminology used in the textbooks. ("realignment", "party system," "gold standard," "tariff," "free silver" etc) Rjensen (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'll play with it again, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The whole "realignment election" thing is post hoc rationalization. I understand that people who study politics talk about such things (or used to) but it seems too jargony to put Third Party System in the lede without further explanation. Some discussion at the end of the article makes sense, but just dropping it in the first paragraph will confuse more people than it educates. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
"post hoc rationalization" is called scholarship and the RS are full of it. wiki privileges the RS. People come here to learn new ideas. Most of our readers are students and this material (like Party Systems) is taught in their textbooks. Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I did some looking on JSTOR and found that the term Third Party System is not universally (or, actually that widely) used. Third Electoral Era, I saw, and sometimes it discussed without naming. I also fear that since the term Third Party System is not intuitive (people might think Third Party as in Dems, Reps, and xxx) I would rather not use the term, but instead have it piped. But we'll work it out. Have you any other thoughts on the article, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think piping it gets the point across that the election of 1896 represented, in retrospect, a shift in the party system. The links allow people to learn more, if they wish, without throwing the jargon in their faces. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Jargon??? the idea of a party system has been around for well over 100 years (Bryce, Ostrogorski, Ford, Merriam). The idea of numbering them came up in the 1960s. If you look at citations at google you will see that "1896" and "forth party system" show up in hundreds of books--mostly reference books and textbooks. The hundreds of thousands of students who take university and high school courses in Am. govt every year have to learn these ideas, and if they're confused by the textbook they come to Wiki for help. So it's standard fare for encyclopedias. I don't worry too much that a reader might be alarmed or damaged by a new idea. I suggest people come to Wiki to learn new ideas and it's the job of the editors to facilitate that. A new idea will be clear in 30 seconds just by clicking on the link.Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to use the term in text, rather than using prose to convey the same thing and providing a pipe?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC).
because learning consists in knowing the exact terminology -- that's what students get quizzed on, and that's what the RS talk about. Wiki rules require the article be tied to the RS. Paraphrasing for the purpose of dumbing down or shielding the reader from standard terminology is unwise. This is not rocket science, the terms are not esoteric or difficult. They are are required in US high school AP courses. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I do seem to remember learning that in my high school American history class. I think the idea hasn't held up well, but my opinion doesn't matter compared to the opinions of reliable sources (Phillips talks a great deal about the shifts in voting patterns, even if I don't recall him using the Third/Fourth terminology). I'd say let's try to leave the Third/Fourth Party system in and see how we can phrase it so that it fits in to the flow of the narrative. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I can squeeze one or the other in. Both in the lede will look like overemphasis. I would rather do the Fourth one. Let the reader take it from there. We can't squeeze in every term. Possibly use both in the body of the article someplace. Is that Ron Paul source OK on the first page of the google search? I mean, I don't care much one way or the other about the man, but will using that one cause us trouble?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, just the Fourth. And a Ron Paul source is asking for trouble. Does Morgan mention anything about party systems? Phillips and Gould don't use that term, as far as I can tell. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
This article discusses the "party system" theory: Party Systems and Realignments in the United States, 1868-2004, James E. Campbell, Social Science History , Vol. 30, No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 359-386 (JSTOR 40267912). --Coemgenus (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, if it is acceptable to Rjensen, I'll write something up.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
we can leave Ron Paul out--he's not an expert on McKinley. Gould is an expert and often uses "party system" (he does not number them, which political scientists usually do); Morgan occasionally used "party system." Phillips often uses the term (eg: McK "is among the six or seven whose election led to a major realignment of the US party system"). Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, agree on both. I will run something up the flagpole using the article Coemgenus proposes. We really don't have room to discuss it much, we are very close to the 130K I feel is the practical limit for FAC even for a president, and I find that the review process tends to add more than subtract.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That article is only available through Duke by paying them. I will look elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
no need to pay. your local library cab get it for you free. Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Found another one instead. Think the article's good to go?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Article too long?

It's getting too long. I suggest we chop down the military section which has rather little on McKinley himself (it's mostly about the army he was attached to and played a minor role in). Rjensen (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Opening lede

[x talk page rjensen]

Your emphasis on McKinley denouncing free silver is incorrect, he said as little about it as he could because he didn't want to polarize. Hobart was much louder on the subject, but for the most part, it was McKinley's surrogates who did it. The reason the lede is unsourced is because it is supported by the body of the article. That isn't in the article, because it is inaccurate. And we do not have to mention free silver twice in the lede. I am uncertain you noticed that it was already in the first paragraph because you linked it. Let's discuss.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

yes. more exactly he denounced inflation and called for sound money. technically he favored bimetallism, both gold and silver. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Republicans in the west tried to sell him as pro silver based on his Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver Purchase votes. He was a very adept politician.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've massaged your changes into the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I would rather have the lede paragraph the way we had it. It isn't just about content, it's about presentation, and there is a way to present a subject in a lede that I have found successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
the lede should start by what he is famous for (tariffs, gold, Spain), and not assassination. Many readers want a 20 second reminder of who he was. Rjensen (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I would agree with you, if this article were being marketed to historians. For the general public, they think "shot" and "war". They've never heard of the gold standard, unless they plan to vote for Ron Paul, in which case they don't have a clue what it actually means. I would rather reward them with a bit of familiarity before depositing them in the alien world of 1896!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
the article, as I see it, is for the benefit of people who want to learn new material about the 1890s. I think in terms of a college freshman taking a course in which McKinley is mentioned and the student asks, "but which one was McKinley?" If important facts are not in the text I'll work on getting them in there. Rjensen (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Or possibly mention it to one of us? We've been accomodating. I see it as more than college freshmen, but rather as something accessible for most ages, yet of course, not letting down standards for the kids. But please try to avoid making major structural changes to the lede. It is a specialized bit of writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, which pages in the Klinghard article are you relying on? I need to know so I can do proper citation.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Klinghard is pp 736-60 and the cite is page 757 Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. The matter is actually rather similar to material Coemgenus had added to the article regarding the evolving historical view of the 1896 election, so I have mixed the two together, not wishing to remove either.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More on lede

[x talk page rjensen]

Your emphasis on McKinley denouncing free silver is incorrect, he said as little about it as he could because he didn't want to polarize. Hobart was much louder on the subject, but for the most part, it was McKinley's surrogates who did it. The reason the lede is unsourced is because it is supported by the body of the article. That isn't in the article, because it is inaccurate. And we do not have to mention free silver twice in the lede. I am uncertain you noticed that it was already in the first paragraph because you linked it. Let's discuss.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

yes. more exactly he denounced inflation and called for sound money. technically he favored bimetallism, both gold and silver. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Republicans in the west tried to sell him as pro silver based on his Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver Purchase votes. He was a very adept politician.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've massaged your changes into the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I would rather have the lede paragraph the way we had it. It isn't just about content, it's about presentation, and there is a way to present a subject in a lede that I have found successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
the lede should start by what he is famous for (tariffs, gold, Spain), and not assassination. Many readers want a 20 second reminder of who he was. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I would agree with you, if this article were being marketed to historians. For the general public, they think "shot" and "war". They've never heard of the gold standard, unless they plan to vote for Ron Paul, in which case they don't have a clue what it actually means. I would rather reward them with a bit of familiarity before depositing them in the alien world of 1896!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
start with tariffs, gold, jobs, Spain, campaigning, Republican politics and readers will get what they want and need. skip the assassination business--(this isn't Kennedy) Rjensen (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not think it effective to put the tariff first. He is not known among the general public for that, and the top of the lede is not the place for education. Please look at WP:LEDE if you get a chance. I am granting you more deference than I would many other editors in the content; please defer to me as to the manner in which the material is presented. I do not have credentials, but I do have experience in writing ledes in articles destined for top-level status and there is an art to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Wiki rule is "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." The assassination is not something McKinley did -- the tariff, gold, the GOP, Spain are his main achievements. "known among the general public" is not the criteria -- the criteria according to WP:LEAD is "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. " Now the general public gets its information from history classes--where else? -- that use standard textbooks, So a reasonable compromise would be to rely mostly on history textbooks, in addition to RS. Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The general public gets its information from many other places besides college textbooks. Biographies, web sites, etc. Please note the "explain why the topic is interesting or notable" part. If the first thing you mention about McKinley is the tariff you will bore and turn off the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"many other places" --well no it doesn't. everyone goes to school and reads textbooks. As for books , yes that's what we're mostly using and they emphasize economic themes, Spain, and (in Kevin Phillips) the realignment of 1896. as for the web by far the #1 destination for this kind of info is this very article. Economic issues in 2012 are phrased as jobs (and for Ron Paul, "gold") -- so we can phrase the tariff issue in terms of jobs, as McK himself did (see the 1890 quote). Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
moving assassination in lede--good move! Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was about to post. I ran google searches which gave the most hits for associating McKinley with war, so let's keep that first. I think I had the assassination first to make the prose work better, one of the thing I am trying to do in a lede is to try to interest the reader in the article, and I think that's still OK now. When I'm sure Alarbus is off the article, I will name McKinley's 1890 opponent (it is not mentioned and is not in the succession boxes at the foot of the article) and slightly shorten what you inserted. I imagine you mentioned it in your work. I have an image somewhere I can bring in that will look good with what you inserted ...
it was John G. Warwick Rjensen (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a little fast research! Do you mention the loss of the Ohio Legislature and the governorship in 1889 due to Foraker's third run and the disunion in the Ohio Republican Party?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
yes I have detailed coverage of 1889 in Winning of the Midwest 116-8; the whole book is online free. Rjensen (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Great, later in the day (Alarbus: I'm staying off the article until this afternoon US EST so you can do your work) I'll look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A couple things. I'm going to drop a few more refs out of the {reflist} so they can use {sfn}, I'll wait until things seem quite before risking {ec}. One the lede, you both are quite immersed in the details of the politics of the day. What Big Bill is mostly known for is being shot by Czolgosz and thus getting Teddy in the Whitehouse. He was also behind Teddy and Dewey and the Span-Am war, and Remember the Maine and all the jingoism. The tariff and monetary policies are important, but mostly belong below the fold. Carry on. Alarbus (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

if people are interested in TR the good news is they don't have to waste their time on this article. People who want to know what really happened, according the the RS, can read it instead.Rjensen (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
gee, thanks. Alarbus (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sherman, Sherman, Sherman

The constant use of a last name is ridiculous. The name Sherman is used about a dozen times, sometimes as "Senator Sherman" but only once is John Sherman fully named. Honestly, I don't think wiki people understand how the average user uses these pages, as some of your "rules" are unhelpful. Only using a link once, for example. Often a person comes to an enormous page such as this for only one subheading, but is then forced to read the whole thing in search of links and full names. Not cool. More reasons WP sucks for research. 184.77.189.134 (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I grant your point, but how would you see it done?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Close PR?

Shall we close the PR and go for FAC? Now that Brian's finished his excellent review and we've made adjustments, we may not get anymore comments, and we may as well get them at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I want to read over Brian's last few comments again, especially about the civil rights section, before FAC, but that shouldn't take long -- hopefully I can do it tonight. You and I both have open FA noms -- will that be a problem? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
No, we're allowed a second nom if it's a joint one. I'll keep Assassination away from FAC until this one's home free, though. I would appreciate it if you would look over the civil rights thing, I'm a bit taken aback that "black" is so unacceptable and would be grateful for your view and that of Rjensen.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I've written FAs before with that word, though I tend to use it only as an adjective. Never had any complaints until now. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Its' Afro-American that seems outdated to me, actually. I wonder if there's anyone we can ask for an outside opinion. Tony1, perhaps?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't heard that since my school days, and even then only in lessons -- I don't remember a black student calling himself "Afro-American". But, yes, an outside opinion couldn't hurt. Is there an MoS on the subject? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
My high school had no blacksAfrican Americans for most of my time, which was simply the way things were there, blacksAfrican Americans went to high schools in more urban towns and generally cleaned our clocks in the state tournaments. I didn't see anything obvious in the MOS, which means little, the MOS is probably larger than the ex-Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm inclined to take our lumps on this one, on reflection. Even if we're right, we could turn out wrong if Brian's attitude is more widely shared at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you want to keep it as "African American", I won't make any changes. The rest of the language works as is. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I closed the PR. If you don't object, I'll launch the FA nom tonight. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
FA nomination is live! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Length

I think we are going to get comments we are too long, Brianboulton, who will review the article when he has a free moment, hinted as much. I think we should look to cut by about 10 percent. Presently, we are pushing 14,000 words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

there is too much on the Civil war--the material says very little about McKinley and lowers the overall usefulness of the article. The danger is that students will spend too much time and miss the major story that in his last decade of life. Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It's already been trimmed enough. The article is the biography of a man, not just a political analysis. People other than students read Wikipedia, and some of them might want to read a bit about McKinley's time at war. His biographers certainly discuss it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
the section on the Civil War is poorly done. Mostly it's about the commanders of various units. What McK did and how he reacted to it and how it shaped his life is notable missing. What you get instead is useless info not about McK. for example this sort of stuffing I(and all of the following section): he regiment resumed its advance that spring with Hayes in command (Scammon by then led the brigade) and fought several minor engagements against the rebel forces.[20] That September, McKinley's regiment was called east to reinforce General John Pope's Army of Virginia at the Second Battle of Bull Run.[21] Delayed in passing through Washington, D.C., the 23rd Ohio did not arrive in time for the battle, but joined the Army of the Potomac as it hurried north to cut off Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia as it was advanced into Maryland.[21] The 23rd was the first regiment to encounter the Confederates at the Battle of South Mountain on September 14.[22] After severe losses, Union forces drove back the Confederates and continued to Sharpsburg, Maryland, where they engaged Lee's army at the Battle of Antietam, one of the bloodiest battles of the war.[23] The 23rd was also in the thick of the fighting at Antietam, and McKinley himself came under heavy fire when bringing rations to the men on the line.[23][a] McKinley's regiment again suffered many casualties, but the Army of the Potomac was victorious and the Confederates retreated into Virginia.[23] The regiment was then detached from the Army of the Potomac and returned by train to western Virginia.[24] Rjensen (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping your edit summaries civil? I didn't call it "useless stuffing" when you addded your own book to the bibliography. Rudeness won't help us to achieve consensus. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I made the point that the war materials is not really about McKinley. too much of the war the text is superflous, unnecessary, useless, un-revealing of McKinley, old-fashioned, not atuned with modern scholarship on soldier motivations, time-wasting and should be deleted to save space. To please Coemgenus I will withdraw the word he finds so dreadful, "stuffing." Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Can't this wait until after the FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It can wait until Hell freezes over. Hard disks are cheap. Alarbus (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
article that are too long and too full of extraneous low-information material don't really deserve exemplary praise. What's in short supply is not disk space but readers' attention. Rjensen (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

More on lead

The lead claims that McKinley's presidency began a period of Republican dominance. How can this be true? Republicans had been dominant ever since the Civil War, both in Congress and in the White House. If anything I would say he "reaffirmed" it after Grover Cleveland, but not "began" it. Brutannica (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Parties tended to lose control of Congress in the off-year election, sometimes very dramatically (1890 and 1894, for example), and no president had been re-elected since Grant. It was a 50/50 nation. Harrison had won the presidency with a minority thanks to the Electoral College, and 1880 and 1876 had been very narrow Republican wins (1876, well ...) Republicans didn't lose control of either again until Wilson, under internal dissent.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
And the FA summation says, "but his presidency began a period of over a third of a century dominated by the Republican Party", which is totally meaningless. At least the article is a bit better.
However, Republican domination lasted from 1861 to 1933, with only 20 years out of 72 being led by Republicans. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In 1893, the Democrats had gotten more votes in the last three presidential elections, and the Republicans had taken a terrible beating in Congress in back to back elections. McKinley did something about that (although, granted, the Democrats had a very bad 1894 election).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Postage Image Substitute

I have removed the following stamp image. It has been established by consensus in the GA and FA review of numerous presidential articles that postage commemorations lack appropriate significance per WP:Images and WP:MOS See Talk pages for Lincoln, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt. A link has been added for the reader to US Presidential Stamps. Hoppyh (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

McKinley
I suppose it was basically decorative. The article's fairly stuffed with images, I won't look to replace it unless I see something interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
A couple earlier sections may look crowded to the image experts but there is room for something in that section. How about Mt. McKinley image following? Hoppyh (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I had the good fortune of seeing it on my only trip to inland Alaska, almost 30 years ago ... but I'm not sure it says anything about the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Categorization - Freemason

Earlier, I removed Category:American Freemasons from this article. That has been reverted, so it is now time to discuss the issue. The Wikipedia guideline that governs this is WP:Categorization of people (with an emphasis on the section: WP:COP#General considerations. It states that we are supposed to "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable".

If being a Freemason is a characteristic that makes McKinley notable, then I would expect at least a short paragraph on his membership in the article. At the moment, all the article has is one "in passing" reference ("McKinley found time to join a Freemason lodge (later renamed after him) in Winchester, Virginia, before he and Carroll were transferred to Hancock's First Veterans Corps in Washington."). I don't think this is enough to justify the categorization. We need more. The question is... what more can we say? Ideas? Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably not too much more. I try not to get involved with categories because I don't greatly care about them and others do I don't know what you would say more than we have also. He was a freemason, and like many lawyer/politicians before and since joined everything in sight to drum up work/votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely his white-supremacy and hatred of the Indians can be directly attributed to his being a Freemason and a Methodist.

500-dollar bill

I think changing the obverse of the $500 bill from depicting Chief Justice Marshall to President McKinley in 1928 is a relevant legacy and should be included on William McKinley's page as more than just a point of trivia. I don't know the circumstances of why he was chosen but it is interesting that he was selected over other former presidents including fellow Republican Teddy Roosevelt. Is this an indication that he was he still quite popular 27 years after his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.75.113 (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really certain. McKinley, I believe, appeared on several banknotes. I'm not an expert on them. He also appeared on several stamps into the 1920s (not counting the Presidential series, on which every deceased president appeared). We'd need to know more about the reasons for same.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

See also

Has that "see also" section always been there? It seems like unnecessary clutter. Anyone object to deleting it? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

good idea Rjensen (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I think at least the postal one has been there for a while. No objection to deletion. McKinley was on a fair number of regular-issue postage stamps in the first quarter of the 20th century, then dropped away, and except for the Prexy issue of 1938 and the AMERIPEX souvenir sheets of 1986 (in both cases honors shared by every other dead president), hasn't been on much since. I don't think it needs to be there.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I deleted it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Last photograph?/painting?

Is the purported last photograph actually a photograph? It looks more like a painting to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slamdac (talk • contribs) 10:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Looks like a painting.131.79.183.32 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is a photo. We're talking about the one entering the Temple of Music, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes the one where he is walking up the stairs. Maybe it's the old technology but it looks more like a painting to me/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slamdac (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's labeled in the source "last known photographs". There were undoubtedly a multitude of depictions of McKinley on his deathbed--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Philippine-American war ?

Mckinley was glorified in his actions that leads the United States Victory against Spain...but why does his involvment was never been mention in this article during the outbreak of Philippine-American?! In his term during his presidency (1899~1902). That also leads to another certain victory but causes more deaths than the Spanish-American war, that annexed or conquered the Philippine islands and its people? For more thay 40 years. And it has labeled to be an imperislist?! FilBox101 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Presidency of William McKinley

As an FYI, a new article has been created from a redirect for the presidency. I started a conversation about the duplication of content on the talk page, and there was a response about why the separate article was created.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede Photo

WP:SNOW closure.Unanimous consensus to 'include the photograph' in the lede/infobox rather than the potrait. Winged Blades Godric 14:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

  • tl;dr = This bio has used a photo of subject as lede, since it was created. There are ample photographs to choose from. Every other presidential bio for ~175 years (before + after) uses photos of the subject as lede. Recently, 2 users with a "pointy" objective have decided to force the use of a painting as lede, citing a nonexistent & wp:npov "official white house portrait" -rule, & a thesis that "paintings are better".
& are completely intransigent in their positions & impervious to discussion, wp, or evidence of prior consensus.
I am "outnumbered" & out of "reverts"; all off which these 2 users are "tactically aware" of. i am also extremely fed up with re-arguing this point with the same editors, time after time.
So, other history/biography/pol-sci editors need to get involved here.
Lx 121 (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT-ial bio for 50+ years back, & all the way forward, uses a photograph of the person as lede.

a photo of the subject has been the established lede on this article for years

no valid reason has been given to now replace it with an inferior & far less nov painting.

as for "consensus":

there's the person who used a photo as lede in the first place,

anyone who selected among photos from lede,

there are all the editors who have worked extensively on the article & didn't change the lede photo for a painting,

since 2003

& there is me.

& no, rjensen, we are NOT going to go over all the same; arguements, all over again.

if you want to do that, i'm just going to c&p & crosslink you to the replies from the last 4 times we've done this.

i'm also going to report you for pointy & disruptive editing.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

& we now have an artilce specifically for "presidency of'; which reinforces the point that this article is a biography of a PERSON.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

did you miss the big debate at Village Pump? please abide by decision there: The community rejects the assumption that all photographs would necessarily be better lead images than paintings or drawings. The consensus is instead that lead images should be chosen on a case-by-case basis by consensus following discussion on each article's talk page. Rjensen (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
actually, NO
consensus was to reject the proposal
there was no consensus beyond that.
therefore "status quo"; see wp:accuracy & wp:npov, as we as image use policies.
Lx 121 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Portrait is much more accurate--it has real skin color. Photo has poor lighting. Image of presidential power and imporantce--he theme of the article-- is better illustrated by portrait. Photo looks like he was caught by surprise & is unsure where he's at. Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • comment -- you have used this same, weak & failed rationale multiple times
& it has been rejected on ALL of those occasions.
your agruements are both (very) nnpov & technically incorrect.
additionally, we have multiple photographs of the subject to choose from.
i am not going to keep composing new rebuttals.
when i have time, i shall c&p & link to the other 4+ "debates" we have had about this, where both myself & other users "consensussed" against your thesis.
this is tuesday, & i have thing to do in the "real world" today.
Lx 121 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

*comment - have gone back 5000 EDITS, to the mid 2000s & a photograph has predominated as lede throughout that time

went back to the beginning of the article; & the 1st image used was a photograph of the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_McKinley&diff=144547&oldid=144546
consensus is we use a photo as lede; Q.E.D.
Lx 121 (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
From what I saw earlier today of discussions at image use police and a village pump, your call for a policy or rule to support your position was overwhelmingly rejected. Official portraits should take precedence over ancient photographic technology of the 19th century. 16:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValarianB (talk • contribs)
  • comment; i have now said both of these thing to you before, which you seem to have ignored, so i am just going to c&p.
one of the items is actually in the section ^right above your comment^
re: my proposal @ village pump:

_______

actually, NO
consensus was to reject the proposal
there was no consensus beyond that.
therefore "status quo"; see wp:accuracy & wp:npov, as we as image use policies.

____

re: "official white house portraits" (from iup & same repeatedly in previous discussions with you_

____

-- for about the "umpteenth" time: 1. "official white house portraits" have NO "special status" in deciding lede image on an aticle that is a biography of a person.

doing so would completely violate wp:npov.
& do we extend this official portrait rule to everybody else too? or is it only for american presidents? or only for "good guys"/people we "like"? & that creates npov problems again.

____

re: the proposal @ i.u.p. (from iup)

____

you are confused (again); the person who created this (@ i.u.p.) proposal wasn't me; & was in fact on your "side" in the other discussions.

____

please read & make sure you understand these things before commenting?
Lx 121 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

you could also try reading this

Wikipedia:Systemic bias

but it is just an essay,

& a wikiproject

& a working group of editors

& templates, etc.

not formal policy

Lx 121 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This writing style is nearly impossible to decipher, sorry. ValarianB (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It is very difficult, but fortunately it doesn't seem to hard to see past it to the dispute. Chris vLS (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Further threaded discussion

  • The writing is hard to make out, but I will offer comment that recent presidential pages do not use the official Presidential portrait (United States) paint-on-canvas images. In general the early images are portraits, the later ones seem to be informal but staged photographs, and it is only since Nixon that I see official flag-in-background photos that look like government settings. I have read mentions in TALK that a practice for bios of people holding Federal office is to use the last official photograph taken, but I have not seen a WP guideline or essay detailing this. This uses a federal practice to take official photograph of each person as they enter their service for positions such cabinet officials like Hillary Clinton, Congressional office such as Sonny Bono, and Judicial positions such as Antonin Scalia. I'm dubious this would be good for officials who have a one-time position early in life and then move on, but as a general practice it does seem reasonable way to resolve things instead of say continuing the perennial which-photo discussion at Donald Trump.
comment -- but are we using these images because they are an accurate likeness of the subject (& debatably also from an "RS")? or are we using them because they are "official"? (as decreed by the US government, or from whatever source of "official"-ness) because accurate & "RS" are valid rationales as WP; but "officialness" (as a reason to "prefer" the image) opens a HUGE can of worms as nnpov; which sources of "official" opinion do we accept & which do we reject? Lx 121 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
& then of course, there is the question of: should we "prefer" a current photograph of a "living person"? over an outdated pic. Lx 121 (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This RfC is a mess. I've taken the liberty of defining a new section. MOS:LEADIMAGE states that 'natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic' should be used. One could argue that both the photograph and painting have a degree of staging but the camera being mechanical/chemical is objective, without the potential biased interpretation of the subject by a painter. Does this make it more natural however? I note that in the painting that William McKinley is holding a letter and some reading glasses. Are there sources to support the inclusion of these objects in the lede image? Did he indeed need glasses? There are none present in his photograph.
The MOS also states that the lead image should be 'the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference work'. Does the photograph or the painting have the most weight in reliable sources?
I suggest restoration of the long-standing image until clear consensus is achieved Cesdeva (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the photo in the lede. My opinion: The photo is a more realistic representation of the person. The painting can also be included in the article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the photo, put the painting in the body. Regardless of how talented a painter is, a photograph is always a more accurate representation of his appearance. This is a terribly formatted RfC, BTW. Use the example format on the RfC page in future, with the Survey section and Threaded discussion section. Also, the line breaks are making my head hurt, and you need a neutrally worded and brief RfC if you want people to get involved. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep photo in infobox - more encylcopedic; painting can go in body BobLaRouche (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the photo - VASTLY superior to the dark painting currently in the lead. ValarianB, your reasoning over why the official portraits should be used is bogus - the photo of McKinley was taken at the start of the 20th century. It is not "ancient" in terms of photographic history - it is clear, well restored (if it ever has been) and accurately shows what the president would of looked like. --Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • comment - restoring photo as lede, pending further developments in the discussion here, which seems to be consensus-ing in favour of photo as lede.
note that: there are multiple other photographs of the man @ wmcommons to choose from, if we are discussing "which is best". also note: that the "official white house presidential portrait" is already included in the article, further down & with an appropriate caption. i do not, & never have had any objection to its inclusion. you can even move it up higher in the article, if you want to. Lx 121 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the photo in this [5] version, in preference to the painting in this [6] version. Summoned by bot. I find that the painting is an inferior image for the reader, and is the less "natural" (per MOS:LEADIMAGE) representation because the contrast with the background is too poor to see the shape of his head (or whether, in fact, he had shoulders). The facial expression in each image has its challenges. The photo is a bit surprised, the painting is faintly over-focused or slightly demonic in the eyes. Now that I've cast my vote, let me also note the challenging nature of this RfC. RfC's are best when neutrally presented, which, in this case would have been in the form: "Should we use image A or B as the lead image?" Also, did this get talked out on the Talk page? Or just in edit comments? I didn't see it. Finally, per WP:NORULES, the weight of precedent is light compared to what makes the best article, especially on issues where consistency with other articles isn't a factor. Everyone here has one thing in common, they are trying to make the article better; couch your arguments that way, not in precedent or non-good-faith comments about other editors. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
*comment -- the talk-page discussion was ongoing for some time before i added the rfc to it. basically it had become a 2 on 1 "endless circle". & re: photographs: commons has sereval more portrait-suitable ones to choose from, & i'm sure there are more mckinley photos out there. all of which would now be public domain as pre-1923. Lx 121 (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2017 (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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William McKinley. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

TFA reruns

Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? I see it has one dead link. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed that. Coemgenus and I worked on this one, and it's still in good shape.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William McKinley. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Why No Mention of McKinley's Atrocities against the Indian Tribes? Is this a Hagiography?

McKinley's appalling actions against the Native Indian population is certainly worthy of mention. This is a cleaned up "Saint's Life" account of his life, air-brushing out his systemic racism & mass-murder of Indians; an entry worthy of the KKK's revisionary history. Just look at any realistic account of his vile presidency: https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/william-mckinley-dismantled-five-civilized-tribes/

If a paragraph or so could be gotten from high quality reliable sources, that is, biographies, histories or journal articles, I would have no objection to a paragraph on Indian policy being added to the civil rights section. I don't remember reading much about it when doing my research.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Atrocity? Military Action??? the source cited here says: One of the last major armed conflicts between American Indians and the U.S. Army occurred during William McKinley’s watch.....the Third Infantry chased an Ojibwe man to his reservation on the shores of Leech Lake....where the man sought refuge from white laws. Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig, 62, was being transported to Duluth as a witness in a federal bootlegging trial when he escaped, triggering military action to recapture him. not much encyclopedic value there. Rjensen (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall any such thing in the scholarly biographies, either. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William McKinley. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Although it breaks my heart...

Wehwalt, are we seriously saying that the version with 19 more "although"s best meets the prose requirement of a featured article? --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the answer to eliminate ALL of them? Be reasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the answer to restore all 19? The obvious answer would be a compromise, not a revert. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, what do you propose?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you could start by listing, in order of importance, which of the 19 you think it essential to keep, with reasons. You mentioned in an edit summary that you thought the meaning was changed by my edit. That might be interesting to discuss. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
That might be a little long-winded; can we proceed to the compromise in some other way? The usual burden is on those desiring a change.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
You said in your edit summary here, Most of the sentences are not as effective, nuance is lost, or the meaning simply changed. Can you give some examples where you contend the meaning was changed? If we agree, they could be ones to keep. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The one I especially did not like begins "Although McKinley enjoyed meeting the public... " I felt some nuance was lost by changing there. I also did not like losing the although in the description of the funeral. I felt that was just an unnecessary change for the sake of change. The ones at the end of the 1896 campaign, in the appointments section (the description of TR's appointment) and the X-Ray machines also bugged me. I think I would compromise on those.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NON LEGITIMATE RACE BAITING

The President did appoint George B. Jackson, a former slave, to the post of customs collector in Presidio, Texas.[177] However, African Americans in northern states felt that their contributions to McKinley's victory were overlooked; few were appointed to office.[176]

It's especially untrue the 1900's admitted or allowed racial hiring quota for ANY race at all, blacks, irish, jewish, etc.

There were plenty of people in the 1900's without "running water" of all color who "didn't get cush government jobs".

Children who lived in orphanage who looked in photos more like pocket lint than young school children, poor living condition.

EVERY GROUP EVERY RACE CAN SAY McKinley wasn't a president who "lifted them up". Presidents do not rescue interest groups. Progress slowly brings them into a higher standard of living.

AND MCKINLEY ABSOLUTELY AND CERTAINLY DID INCREASE THE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THE USA. PERIOD. MORE ROADS, TOILETS, MORE INDUSTRY.

And it's NOT true that "no blacks shared in it". The opposite is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:401:AFD0:1D80:21B7:6B6A:76C0 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Historical white washing of McKinley's expansionist record.

I don't understand why I find so many gross mis-caricaturization of accepted historical facts with regard to McKinley's overseas record, especially in China and Hawaii, when accurate articles can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia? Why is it that if I look up the Boxer Rebellion on this site, all I get is a Western European version of the conflict that doesn't address the Opium Wars until the middle of the ninth paragraph? If one were to stop reading the article before that as many can be assumed to do, then one would get the impression that the Boxer Rebellion, that influenced McKinley in joining the rest of the European powers in their pursuit of an "open China", was merely a retaliation for Chinese Nativism, like that which brought the Chinese Exclusion Act into law in California; in fact it was quite the opposite. It was European colonialism pure and simple and those "foreigners" who needed protecting, would have been considered criminals had they committed their acts at home rather than in a country the West was intent upon destabilizing.

The Boxer rebellion was in retaliation for European encroachments into China's national sovereignty. Encroachments it should go without saying, no European power would have tollerated then or now. Having been forced to go to war twice to try to stem the tide of illegal of opium imported into China by European countries and American merchants when those respective countries refused to end the practice themselves, to no one's great surprise China lost. It would be hard to see any other outcome against the combined military might of these European countries, intent upon reversing the 1000 year trade deficit between West and East by any means necessary, even if that meant forcing opium into the country against that countries will. Due to concessions China was forced to make after the war, European countries gained the right to commit whatever crimes they wished within China and avoid criminal repercussions by hiding within the walls of the trading centers they controlled under European legal jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen

That was the historical backdrop for the anti-foreign sentiment only slightly alluded to in this articles' off hand reference to the Boxer's Rebellion, but instead these facts are entirely absent from any articles other than ones directly referring the Opium Wars, even though many events were influenced by them, like the Boxer Rebellion and the Chinese immigration wave to California that precipitated the exclusion act already mentioned. For whatever reason Wikipedia refuses to cross reference its own articles and as such large holes are left in the historical narrative that can only be plugged if you go off the beaten path. As a result we have examples like this white-washed article on McKinley, in which his open door policy is due to foreigners being harassed with no mention at all of the "Unequal Treaties" that China was forced to sign as a result of loosing their bid to protect their society from opioid addiction.

Likewise, calling the political machinations involved in the illegal seizing of Hawaii by US Business interests in a coup d'etat "Annexation" goes well beyond mere prevarication. I need to know, are these instances of purposeful, intellectual dishonesty in order to push the status quo's historical propaganda over historical fact, or is it merely the result of unconscious cultural bias? I used to come to Wikipedia for "facts" until I started to notice this trend. Now I have to take everything with a grain of salt and do a lot more cross referencing on my own to arrive at anything resembling truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coyotle1979 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have a good understanding of the subject matter and access to high-quality sources, then there's nothing stopping you from editing Wikipedia yourself. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical white washing of McKinley's expansionist record.

I don't understand why I find so many gross mis-caricaturization of accepted historical facts with regard to McKinley's overseas record, especially in China and Hawaii, when accurate articles can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia? Why is it that if I look up the Boxer Rebellion on this site, all I get is a Western European version of the conflict that doesn't address the Opium Wars until the middle of the ninth paragraph? If one were to stop reading the article before that as many can be assumed to do, then one would get the impression that the Boxer Rebellion, that influenced McKinley in joining the rest of the European powers in their pursuit of an "open China", was merely a retaliation for Chinese Nativism, like that which brought the Chinese Exclusion Act into law in California; in fact it was quite the opposite. It was European colonialism pure and simple and those "foreigners" who needed protecting, would have been considered criminals had they committed their acts at home rather than in a country the West was intent upon destabilizing.

The Boxer rebellion was in retaliation for European encroachments into China's national sovereignty. Encroachments it should go without saying, no European power would have tollerated then or now. Having been forced to go to war twice to try to stem the tide of illegal of opium imported into China by European countries and American merchants when those respective countries refused to end the practice themselves, to no one's great surprise China lost. It would be hard to see any other outcome against the combined military might of these European countries, intent upon reversing the 1000 year trade deficit between West and East by any means necessary, even if that meant forcing opium into the country against that countries will. Due to concessions China was forced to make after the war, European countries gained the right to commit whatever crimes they wished within China and avoid criminal repercussions by hiding within the walls of the trading centers they controlled under European legal jurisdictions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen

That was the historical backdrop for the anti-foreign sentiment only slightly alluded to in this articles' off hand reference to the Boxer's Rebellion, but instead these facts are entirely absent from any articles other than ones directly referring the Opium Wars, even though many events were influenced by them, like the Boxer Rebellion and the Chinese immigration wave to California that precipitated the exclusion act already mentioned. For whatever reason Wikipedia refuses to cross reference its own articles and as such large holes are left in the historical narrative that can only be plugged if you go off the beaten path. As a result we have examples like this white-washed article on McKinley, in which his open door policy is due to foreigners being harassed with no mention at all of the "Unequal Treaties" that China was forced to sign as a result of loosing their bid to protect their society from opioid addiction.

Likewise, calling the political machinations involved in the illegal seizing of Hawaii by US Business interests in a coup d'etat "Annexation" goes well beyond mere prevarication. I need to know, are these instances of purposeful, intellectual dishonesty in order to push the status quo's historical propaganda over historical fact, or is it merely the result of unconscious cultural bias? I used to come to Wikipedia for "facts" until I started to notice this trend. Now I have to take everything with a grain of salt and do a lot more cross referencing on my own to arrive at anything resembling truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coyotle1979 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have a good understanding of the subject matter and access to high-quality sources, then there's nothing stopping you from editing Wikipedia yourself. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

Currently, military rank is using Air Force shoulder rank for Captain image. McKinley was in the Army, and as such I request image link be edited to link below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army#/media/File:US-O3_insignia.svg Sfre5 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done. Images like this aren't given as plain embeds. This was using the {{dodseal}} template. In any case, it wasn't needed here, so I simply removed it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Typo in “ Cuba crisis and war with Spain” paragraph

Last line has a typo/doubling of a word. GerbearDVR (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2020

Nancy (Campbell) Allison, (1809-1897) her mother was Anne Campbell and Nancy used her mothers maiden name as her middle name. Lauracampbellfrey71 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

What are you asking to change and what sources do you have for that?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Please add to external links: A eulogy for President McKinley by Rabbi Brodsky in Newark (in Hebrew) - https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31026&st=&pgnum=32&hilite= 2A01:6500:A049:88C8:110D:66A5:406C:122C (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please see WP:EL and clarify why you want this link to be added ? Cedix (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
a non-English text needs a VERY strong justification. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

McKinley vs. McKinley Jr.

Rather than edit war over whether McKinley's name should be listed as "William McKinley Jr." we should discuss it here. The current version reads William McKinley (born William McKinley Jr., which implies that McKinley changed his name at some point. Is there any evidence for that? It's not just a question of usage but of whether William McKinley Jr. was his legal name. I've read a couple of biographies of McKinley but unfortunately they're library books and I no longer have access to them. In the absence of evidence that McKinley legally changed his name, I think his name should be listed as William McKinley Jr. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

For us to use the Jr, we should show that his legal name included "Jr", and that a name change was required in the 19th century. I think the Jr was more disambiguation than part of the legal name. Anyway, I do have some of the McKinley bios around I will look and see if they shed any light, as well as any change in style when his father died.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I looked at Leech (p.4) and Morgan (p.5). They refer to the future president as Jr. when describing his birth and childhood. Morgan mentions that the father "William McKinley Sr., as he was called when his son rose to national prominence, ..." The word "called" makes me think more of disambiguation than formal name.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
William McKinley Sr. would of course be a matter of usage rather than a formal/legal name, but it's not clear whether William McKinley Jr. was his son's legal name or just a convenient way of distinguishing the son from the father. Unless there is further evidence I still think it's best to use William McKinley Jr., similar to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.. Do others here have an opinion about this? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not quite the same. There is a very prominent Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.. The elder William only shines by the light of his son's glory, so to speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I just compared the Congressional Record for October 15, 1877 (McKinley's original swearing in) with that for February 10, 1897 (his election as president). In the first, father still alive, he is referred to as "William McKinley, jr." In the second, after his father's death, he is "William McKinley". I imagine these bodies, and the election certificates the action would be based on, use proper legal names.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's definitive but it's evidence that the usage changed after the death of McKinley's father. Thanks for researching this. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

In the succession boxes at the bottom, please add the following boxes:

Party political offices
Preceded by Republican nominee for Governor of Ohio
1891, 1893 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Republican nominee for President of the United States
1896, 1900 		Succeeded by

2601:241:301:4360:B5B7:CC4D:4D7F:7FC2 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is a featured article, changes which are anything other than utterly incidental need discussion first. The problem here is adding these might be viewed by some (myself included) as a form of overlinking. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be common practice to include such succession boxes. For example, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, and Warren G. Harding are just a few of such articles that include them. If necessary, one could just not link to the names.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:b5b7:cc4d:4d7f:7fc2 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Establishing a consensus means waiting for others to comment. :) One can take different opinions on whether it is necessary to include these. For example, given the subject of the article is a twice elected president, it seems redundant to include a template that he was twice a party nominee. Anyway, please let others comment (you can also request comment at the project pages) and *establish consensus* for change *before* activating the request again. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Which project page would that be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:B5B7:CC4D:4D7F:7FC2 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Please don't forget to sign your contributions by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comments. You can reques people to respond on the talk pages of the projects shown at the top of this talk page. But this will be the best place to start: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Presidents. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
favor adding the boxes is a good idea and not controversial. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
How much is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:5B1:48B7:B35D:D8CB (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

First M.E. Church of Canton, Ohio

As the President-Elect's religious involvement was of interest to the electorate, is this something to include in a citation?

Our New President. Vol. V No. 8. Rock Island: Augustana Book Concern. April 15, 1897. p. 7 col. 1–2. Such a man is the incoming Executive, who for many years has been a member of the First M.E. Church of his home town of Canton, O[hio]. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Lent (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather have the significance discussed by a biographer or another historian, rather than an 1897 source.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020

Please rearrange the succession boxes so they look like this:


2601:241:300:B610:C57F:7A96:5A20:DF33 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amkgp 💬 10:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c McKinley, William (1893). Speeches and addresses of William McKinley: from his election to Congress to the present time. D. Appleton and Company.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_McKinley/Archive_1&oldid=1210895520"