Talk:William McKinley

Page views for this article over the last 30 days
Detailed traffic statistics

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150829072453/http://www.mckinley.k12.hi.us/history.html to http://www.mckinley.k12.hi.us/history.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225122235/http://www.lahistory.org/site20.php to http://www.lahistory.org/site20.php

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)

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:

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