Talk:William Howard Taft/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Material needs sources

I have removed the following which needs additional sources: Taft was reluctant to use federal authority to enforce the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guaranteed African Americans the right to vote. As a result, state governments were able to enforce voter registration requirements that prevented African Americans from voting. Lynching by whites was common throughout the South at the time; however, Taft did nothing to stop the practice. Taft publicly endorsed Booker T. Washington's program for uplifting the black race, advising them to stay out of politics at the time. A supporter of free immigration, Taft vetoed a law passed by Congress that would have restricted admissions by imposing a literacy test. Hoppyh (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No additional sources are needed. Coletta has long been the standard scholarly source, of course, and the newer Gould study makes the same points (on pp 131, 207). The issues are not controversial and there is no debate on them. I rephrased the material Rjensen (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Taft as Governor-General of the Philippines

Hello all,

I am a regular consumer of Wikipedia, usually because I have read something historical and would like additional background information about something or other. That was exactly what happened when I accessed the above entry, and was confronted with the below paragraph:

"President Theodore Roosevelt offered Taft (then Governor -General of the Philippines) the seat on the Supreme Court to which he had for so long aspired, but he reluctantly declined since he viewed the Filipinos as not yet being capable of governing themselves and because of his popularity among them."

This is a remarkable piece of historical revision. Taft presided over a brutal counter-insurgency campaign which saw US forces liberally use torture and the massacre of civilians as a way to quell the opposition. He was popular with the very small segment of the population who sided with the US, but hated by all others.

I corrected this entry, The first time I had attempted to do something like this. I did so without references and in a pretty direct way. The edit was reversed, stating that it appeared that I was "biased". Fair enough. So I edited the entry again, this time using more moderate language and inserting numerous references. Same response: I was deemed "not neutral". But no countervailing references were ever produced.

I have therefore contacted the Wikipedia people, who have helpfully explained the editing process to me and guided me to this page. Here's my pitch: the evidence (much of it listed in Wikipedia's own entry on the Philippine Insurrection) conclusively proves that the USA conducted a brutal counter-insurgency campaign during Taft's tenure as Governor-General. Concentration camps, torture and massacres of civilians were all common. Taft himself is on record as espousing pretty racist views, of the Philippinos being like children and his own role being very much in keeping with the "White Man's Burden" approach.

So I propose that this entry be, at the minimum, revised to reflect these historical facts.

Before you write me off as a Yankee-hating loon, you should know I am the doctor who has spent more time in combat in Afghanistan than any other Canadian Armed Forces MD. Google me.

Best wishes for 2012,

Captain Ray Wiss, M.D. "FOB Doc" portray@vianet.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.176.102 (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

--I have also wondered about this. General Eisenhower — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.149.62 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Head of two branches

In the opening paragraph it states that Taft, along with James Polk, were the only two to have headed different branches of the federal government. However, given that the Legislative branch is composed of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, I think this should be removed. The inclusion/phrasing makes it seem as if the House is more important or has more power than the Senate. Thoughts? 67.181.76.194 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the statement is not accurate and is triv1al to boot. I'm editing it now.Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Was it Roosevelt or Wilson who appointed Taft Governor of the Philippines?

According to source 18 (http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/taft/essays/biography/2)Which is part of the University of Virginia's Presidents info pages, states that it was Wilson who Appointed Taft as noted on this wiki document. However The Virginia Universities president info site also States on Teddy Roosevelt's Foreign Affairs page that he in fact appointed Taft: "Philippines One of the situations that Roosevelt inherited upon taking office was governance of the Philippines, an island nation in Asia. During the Spanish-American War, the United States had taken control of the archipelago from Spain. When Roosevelt appointed William Howard Taft as the first civilian governor of the islands in 1901, Taft recommended the creation of a civil government with an elected legislative assembly. The Taft administration was able to negotiate with Congress for a bill that included a governor general, an independent judiciary, and the legislative assembly." URL: http://millercenter.org/president/roosevelt/essays/biography/5

Anyway... thought someone might want to check that for the truth... sounds like an oops on the Virginia Universities part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.165.205 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a "poorly received source"

I don't understand this edit. It looks like it may flout WP:DUE. I took a brief stab at looking deeper by looking at Larry Schweikart; Michael Patrick Allen (2004), A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror, Penguin, ISBN 978-1-101-21778-8, but I don't have access to dead tree sources and that source is not previewable online. It looks to me like this deserves a second look and, if the removal of the cites stands, that probably implies the need for insertion of some {{cn}} tags. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The book has been sharply criticized for its biased slant in favor of Tea Party style patriotism to the detriment of facts. Historian David Hoogland Noon wrote that the book's authors "make claims that are not even remotely endorsed by the footnoted sources."[1] Law Professor Jared A. Goldstein criticizes the bias of the book; he quotes the book's counter-bias by as stated by its authors: "...those writing history have allowed their biases to distort the way American history is taught... utterly downplaying the greatness of America's patriots..." ("Tea Party Movement and the Perils of Popular Originalism", Arizona Law Review.) Law Professor Alfred Brophy uses this book and also Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States as examples of the bias which comes from the authors' activism in culture wars. ("Reparations Talk in College", Michigan Journal of Race & Law.) Roberto A. Valdeón of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, also the Taylor & Francis editor-in-chief, uses the same two books as examples of the purposeful manipulation of history to the detriment of fact. ("Communicating the past via translation: the manipulation of history", Language and Intercultural Communication.) I think Wikipedia cannot use these books as hard factual references.

However, the facts about Taft that were brought to this article are most likely supportable by other sources. Since I was responsible for the removal of the flawed book, I should go out and look for replacement cites. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at the first spot where I removed a cite, the paragraph which starts, "Taft indicated to Roosevelt he wanted to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not President, but there was no vacancy and Roosevelt had other plans..." This bit is taken from Donald F. Anderson's 1973 book, William Howard Taft: A Conservative's Conception of the Presidency. Anderson is a former poli sci prof at University of Michigan-Dearborn, so he's no slouch, but the "fact" is utterly contradicted by the eminent James MacGregor Burns in the 2009 book Packing the Court. Burns says, "Repeatedly Roosevelt offered him a seat on the Supreme Court, almost begging him to take it. But while Taft always maintained that the court was his highest ambition, he had his eye on a bigger prize—the presidency."

So I think it will be fairly difficult to try and replace the Schweikart/Allen bits with books that agree with the viewpoint. Instead, it would probably be more worthwhile to gauge the consensus of historians and present the agreed-upon bits to the reader. The inner motivations of Taft and his peers are the likeliest points of contention. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Or, if significant differences exist between sources generally considered reliable for the topic, follow WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Schweikart presents a conservative viewpoint and that viewpoint has indeed been attacked -- by people who have a liberal slant on history and who hate and detest the Tea Party. The one historian Binksternet cites (Noon) complains that the book has too few footnotes (that's true and is common in popular books--including those by James Macgregor Burns). But Noon is not a major scholar (he has not published any books and has not been reviewed); Noon's review mostly complains that conservative issues get too much attention while his favorite liberal themes are underplayed. Even so Noon finds, "It should be noted, however, that most historians would probably find nothing troubling about a text that emphasizes political, military, and business history (as this one does), nor would they automatically dismiss a book for celebrating the United States as a moral beacon to the world. Aside from its more "traditional" emphasis on Great Men and its heavy reliance on historical works published prior to the 1970s, the broad narrative of A Patriot's History is unremarkable." Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with a conservative viewpoint presented in a book or on Wikipedia. I do have a problem with the idea that a conservative (or liberal) viewpoint automatically has a right to be represented here. The thing that gives an idea the "right" to be on Wikipedia is whether it is notable.

My focus here is not concerned with the liberal–conservative polarity; it is on facts that we tell to the reader. The popular book in question has dubious facts in it, presented to the reader for the purpose of producing a feel-good response without regard to contrary or uncomfortable facts. This is not scholarship; it is pop culture pablum. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No one has claimed the book is slanted regarding President Taft-- -- "pop culture pablum" is insulting language that suggests Binksternet has not read the book at allbut is merely making things up. As to the issue of whether Taft wanted to be president or justice that's a different question--TR did not offer the job Taft wanted, that of CHIEF Justice, which he later got. If Binksternet is concerned about Taft he shows surprisingly little interest in any of the scholarship on Taft. He's actually on a self-proclaimed vendetta against Schweikart--whom he has never read but has seen one hostile review in one history journal that complains that Schweikart has too few footnotes (which indeed is true but hardly a reason to erase citations.) In this case Schweikart and Allen do cite their source--the standard study by Mowry. In all a bad job of POV editing is on display here. Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A pop book with known mistakes should be treated much more carefully. If Mowry is cited by Schweikart and Allen, then why not put aside the suspect source and use the good one?

Regarding Taft's ambitions, some say he wanted to have both jobs, one after the other, president followed by chief justice. Hence my questioning of our text which says "not President". Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Binksternet I actually read the Schw.-All. passage in question (and I read Mowry's several books on the era) and I find the S-A coverage noncontroversial. Binksternet seems not to have read either S-A or Mowry, so I'm puzzled why he wants to interject his strong opinions that are not based on any RS, His opinions seem to be based on a serious misinterpretation of Schweikart-Allen, which he falsely believes was written "for the purpose of producing a feel-good response". The S-A book is quite the opposite--it's designed to make readers angry at what the authors consider to be bad government policies. (Indeed that is why Tea Party people like it--they are angry people.) Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible problem source

Footnote 103 right now leads to apneos.com, which claims to have supported research about Taft's probable sleep apnea. However, the website is a commercial one, and none of their links go to the actual research they claim exists. A search found an abstract of the research that apneos.com claims to have sponsored, but the abstract does not quite match the information apneos.com (and, in turn, this Wikipedia article) list. Perhaps someone who can access the research, "Taft and Pickwick: sleep apnea in the White House" by JG Sotos can update this source with direct information instead of this secondary link to a somewhat incorrect commercial website? Clockster (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bogus statements in "Medical" section

The medical section, as I encountered it today, contained several errors. - Taft was said to have chronic belching and flatulence. The cited reference does not say this. - Taft was said to have ordered subordinates to unstick him from a bathtub using butter. The cited book does not contain the word "butter." - Taft was said to consume certain types of food and be dismayed about his reputation as a glutton. The cited reference says only that Taft was dismayed by his bulk and tried to reduce it.

I have, therefore, removed these statements and re-written the "Medical and Weight" section to more closely adhere to the published literature on the subject. Drz1627 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of these statement were added by User:Jimsteele9999 who seems to have a habit of fabricating sources. See: [2][3][4][5]. FallingGravity (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Nominated by Warren G. Harding" in the wrong place

On the article, it says that Taft was nominated by Harding for President (in actuality, he was obviously nominated to be Chief Justice). Sorry, but I couldn't figure out how to fix this - when I clicked on the Edit tab, the nomination appeared to be in the right place. Can someone correct this?

mrscientistman (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Harding did nominate Taft for president. At the 1912 convention, with the party bitterly split between Taft and Roosevelt, Harding backed Taft and was the one who put his name in nomination. Harding's nominating address at the 1912 convention brought him national attention -- he was a relative unknown at the time -- and launched him on the path that would see him elected to the U.S. Senate in 1914 and the presidency in 1920. Iglew (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing and Bias

It's a little disturbing that this article is so overwhelmingly sourced to Judith Anderson's biography. I have nothing against Ms Anderson's work, but it's a psychological profile, and such biographies are the most prone to speculation and subjectivity. There are a lot of descriptive words sprinkled throughout the article that give an impression of Taft's personality -- his legalistic inflexibility, his frequent "reluctance", and so forth -- all of which come from Anderson. The result is that the Wikipedia article paints a psychological portrait of Taft which mirrors Anderson's. Iglew (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Never served on Ohio Supreme Court

The article’s introduction states Taft was appointed to the Ohio Supreme Court. That court’s web site does not list him.

The interior of the article says the appointment in 1887 was to the Superior Court of Ohio in Cincinnati. This court is mentioned elsewhere on the web as the 1887 appointment.

Edit.needed.to.preceded.hyperlink

Superior Court, not Supreme Court. Two different courts. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Taft-Diaz Assassination Attempt

You state that: "none of the Taft biographers call it an assassination attempt". What is your source? You must be reading a different source. The cited source states the following (p.16): "There is evidence, in two independently corroborating reports, of at least one planned assassination attempt. At the El Paso Chamber of Commerce building, just before Taft and Diaz met there, Burnham noticed what he described as a sinister looking man writing in a notebook. He signaled a Texas Ranger, Private C.R. Moore... Moore slipped his arm through the arm of the suspect and Burnham grabbed the wrist. Quickly flipping over his hand, Burnham and Moore discovered that the pencil sticking out between the first and second fingers was a actually the muzzle of a pistol especially designed to be hidden in the palm of the hand. The Texas Ranger report of the incident identified the weapon as a pencil pistol, an assassins weapon.... "A major tragedy -- and international incident -- had in all probability been averted."

The text you deleted satisfied Wikipedia:Verifiability and it was from the most reliable source cited by WP:SOURCE, that is, an academic and peer-reviewed publication. Editing from a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic -- and this source clearly satisfied this criteria.

I will revert the prior text and it should not be deleted unless there is consensus. If you have additional data to provide, bring it to this talk page for discussion. Ctatkinson (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Taft relation to Pullman strike in Chicago

Hi! I was reading article about Taft in English and then decided to read it quickly in Russian. I found out that Russian version mentions his relation to Pullman strike in Chicago.

Here is what I found in English regarding to what I read in Russian:

https://books.google.com/books?id=rfLdjV92yx0C&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=taft+letter+about+chicago+pullman&source=bl&ots=8kIQkADHUG&sig=Ag8do6Cj76ooLL0ULyxwgkBAMuk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWytVKmYE8LEygOBq4GgCQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=taft%20letter%20about%20chicago%20pullman&f=false

Article in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft Article in Russian: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%84%D1%82,_%D0%A3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BC_%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4 Source of information in Russian mentioned in the article: http://www.childrenpedia.org/8/page459.html Pullman Strike page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

I am not sure if this is true facts but at least Russian and English pages are different now.

Can anyone clarify why this fact is not mentioned in English version and is mentioned in Russian one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.143.147 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Issue with use of FBI in the Assasination Attempt

The FBI was created in 1935. This is factual wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.191.70 (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That is in fact incorrect the FBI was formed in 1908 under the name of Bureau of Investigation.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on William Howard Taft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090118193311/http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/Courts/supreme/judges/taft/taft.html to http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/lib_hist/courts/supreme/judges/taft/taft.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061206043942/http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org:80/historical_information/william_taft.html to http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/historical_information/william_taft.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral view?

This article seems not to be in a neutral voice. Like at all. 'Decisive and restraint'? What the heck? 50.136.158.31 (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

the goal here is to be neutral regarding the RS, so that all significant viewpoints are represented. That is, this article follows what the historians say about Taft. Is there any sentence that seems wrong? Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality for Presidency, 1909 – 1913

The fourth chapter of this article would lead readers to see Taft in a rather negative light – and partly from sentences that, while not false, are not encyclopedic:

"Again, due to his results-oriented style, politically he had managed to alienate all sides."
"Nevertheless, in the process Taft passed up yet another opportunity to embolden himself politically through the use of patronage."
"Again displaying his inept administrative leadership, Taft, while not sharing any of Knox's respect for Wilson's ability, deferred to much of Wilson's policy making." AndrewOne (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

editors are neutral with respect to the RS, and I think that text represents the consensus of RS. It is NOT true that editors are not allowed to include criticisms made by scholars--just the opposite. Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have fully understood, for a while, that editors may add scholars' criticism (and that they generally should); in fact, I have done so many times, for pages about films. The problem here is that the sentences are not quotations from historians or scholars. Instead, they appear in the article as though they state facts – even though they have clear hints of POV. Even if an opinion is agreed upon by most historians, the article must read that it is what most historians think, rather than state the argument as fact. Most scholars consider Thomas Jefferson to have been a very good president. An encyclopedic article would not directly state, however, that Jefferson was a very good president. AndrewOne (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Courtship to Helen Harron

Under the subsection Ohio Lawyer and Judge, this article states "It is not clear when Taft met Helen Herron (often called Nellie), but it was no later than 1880, when she mentioned in her diary receiving an invitation to a party from him." However, on the Wikipedia article for Helen, under the section Early Years it states "In 1879, she met William Howard Taft at a bobsledding party in Cincinnati; he was 22 years old, she was 18. He asked her out for the first time in February 1880, but they did not date regularly until 1882." No source is provided for either sentence. So, anyone know which is accurate? The two articles should align. CPAScott (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It is sourced to the source at the end of the paragraph. We do not place identical footnotes for each sentence, that would clutter things. What I wrote in the WHT article is more or less what the reference said. The only real inconsistency is the bobsled party.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Bathtub hoax

I know (and I'm sure if you've been a regular contributor to this article then you also know) that Taft was never actually stuck in a bathtub. But it's a widespread myth, with over 150,000 hits on Google — many of which state that he was. This is something which, I strongly feel, needs to be addressed either in this article or in a split-off article ("William Howard Taft bathtub hoax", perhaps?). Any suggestions as to how? DS (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing a picture of several children sitting in the specially-made bathtub Taft did use ... if we use that image, we can mention it in a caption that he was never stuck in it. No harm in a little human interest. Assuming that picture is PD and can be found, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe I know the photo you mean; it was several adult workers. He did need an extra-large tub for his personal use, yes, and on those occasions when the extra-large tub was unavailable, he cunningly took showers instead. There's been substantial research into this issue, in fact. DS (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking of the bathtub in Manila and the children were Filipino. Can you find a suitable photograph? I don't care which it is, so long as it conveys the point. Probably the one you mention would be better, if it was the White House tub.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of sources about this. See e.g., [6], [7], which may or may not meet WP:IRS. Here, Google Books lists a number of books which contain material about this. At least one of them has a chapter about it:

• Pohl, Robert S. (2013). "Stuck in the White House". Urban Legends & Historic Lore of Washington, Part 3. The History Press. p. 68. As difficult as it is to prove that something never happened, it seems quite clear that William Howard Taft was never stuck in a bathtub in the White House [...] {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

The image with four men in the tub is among these. It is on Flickr here. (see WP:FLICKR). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We would have to show that it is defensibly in the public domain, for example, that it was published before 1923.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

[Constitution Center] says it was published in Engineering Review in 1909, and has several other useful details. DS (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I like that source. I've added a bit to the Legacy section from it about the bathtub. Does that work for everyone? Not sure we need the image now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Good for a start, but now I've convinced myself that this could actually benefit from a separate article, analyzing the apparent origins of the hoax, the extent to which it has spread, etc. William Howard Taft bathtub hoax, anyone? (My list of articles-in-progress grows ever longer...) DS (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know how thoroughly it can be sourced to the Roosevelt faction ... it would be a nice little article to have. I'd be happy to help with research for a start.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

The date of Taft's birth is incorrect in the second paragraph. He was not born in 1919. He was born in 1857.

137.191.238.194 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone vandalized the article and no one noticed, or if they did notice, they said nothing. It is hard on content contributors when this happens, and it does no one any good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Could a kind admin capitalise "chief justice" in the lede? It's a title, and capitalised when first used. It's this bit here -> "In 1921, President Warren G. Harding appointed Taft chief justice, a position in which he served until a month before his death.", which should instead be -> ""In 1921, President Warren G. Harding appointed Taft Chief Justice, a position in which he served until a month before his death."" Thank you kindly! 80.189.168.37 (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree with you, but our manual of style seems to run the other way. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No objections, but there appear to be multiple instances of the lowercase "chief justice" as well as "Chief Justice". Is this request just to capitalize the first instance? Also, Wehwalt, if the request looks reasonable, can probably just make the edit. — Andy W. (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess capitalise all (embarrassed I didn't check beyond the lede...). But moot, I guess, if the MoS says no. 80.189.168.37 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, per the MOS, "Chief Justice Taft" but "Taft, the chief justice"--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Far east" or "East Asia"

Historians use both terms. Dollar Diplomacy by Eugene Trani writes: "the foreign policy followed by the United States... of investment and trade, especially in Latin America and the Far East. ... A concentration on economic opportunities in Latin America and East Asia ..." Stacy A. Cordery Alice: Alice Roosevelt Longworth, from White House Princess to Washington (2008) ch 7 -writes about Roosevelt: "The president wanted to send a high-level delegation to East Asia (the Far East, as it was then styled by Westerners)... Led by Secretary of War William Howard Taft ..." Rjensen (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't feel that strongly about it, I just want to make sure we do not use an outdated term that people today feel strongly about, if you catch my drift.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Howard Taft. 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/20160730115701/http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj to http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Howard Taft. 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/20070811134330/http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/taft to http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/taft

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ordering in Hierarchy of Chief Justiceship and Presidency

Taft served as the U.S. Chief Justice after he was the U.S. President. Yet, the article pushes his presidency above his chief justiceship, indicating that the offices are not equal. A reverse-chronological listing with the Chief Justiceship first would be better.

CJ and POTUS are the heads of their respective branches. Sure, the presidency is usually seen as more powerful, but that is not always the case-- the balance is less clear with Marshall versus Jefferson; Taney versus Buchannan; and Warren versus Eisenhower. The Chief Justice also has life tenure while the president does not. In a race of dullness, Taft's Presidency and Chief Justiceship ended in a photo-finish. Lukacris (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Lukacris

The President is a head of state and the Chief Justice is not. See, for example, United States order of precedence. Also, the president constitutionally exercises the full power of the executive branch, see unitary executive theory. The Chief Justice does not possess the power of the judiciary. Thus the presidency is a higher office and should be listed at the top of the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why the "head of state" distinction matters. CJ also handles opinion-assignment and administration for deciding what the Constitution means, a law that governts the President. Lukacris (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Lukacris

For two centuries the diplomats have paid close attention to the question of order of precedence. The ranking is: 'Order of Precedence 1. President of the United States 2. Vice President of the United States 3. Governor of a state (when in own state) 4. Speaker of the House of Representatives Chief Justice of the United States 5. Former Presidents of the United States... see Mary Mel French (2010). United States Protocol: The Guide to Official Diplomatic Etiquette. p. 15. Rjensen (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with that reason. Consider my objection dropped unless someone else wants to pick it up. Lukacris (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Howard Taft. 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/20161003120110/http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/the-transformation-of-american-democracy-teddy-roosevelt-the-1912-election-and-the-progressive-party to http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/the-transformation-of-american-democracy-teddy-roosevelt-the-1912-election-and-the-progressive-party

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

According to Coletta

This article contains the text: "According to Coletta, however, Knox was not a good diplomat". But I don't know who or what Coletta is, and Google doesn't help.

The article should explain who or what Coletta is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.168.79 (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It is Coletta, Paolo E. A historian. I'll take a look at the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the article. Thanks for letting us know. You can find the relevant book under "Sources".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

President v. Chief Justice

Which position is considered to be higher? I know that the office of the President is put on top of the infobox, but does that mean the position is higher than Chief Justice or more notable for Taft? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Misleading note on Sherman's death

March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913 Vice President James S. Sherman (1909–1912) None (1912–1913)[a]- "Vice President Sherman died in office. As this was prior to the adoption of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the office of Vice President was not filled until the next ensuing election and inauguration."

Sherman died less than a week before the election. The fact that this was before the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is irrelevant as the Electoral College would soon have met to elect the new Vice President. The 25th Amendment had it existed back then would not have been invoked to fill the vice presidency due to close proximity to the election.

110.33.0.155 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It might have as Congress convened in December in those days and you'd want a VP for his tie breaking vote if nothing else during the lame duck session.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Phillipine Years : Cite on Popularity in Phillipines

Here is a suggested addition of a citation of a supporting 1903 news article. This is for the second sentence of the last paragraph of the William_Howard_Taft#Philippine_years section.

Original text

One reason for Roosevelt's action was his desire to neutralize a potential rival for the presidency: Taft's success in the Philippines had not gone unnoticed in the American press. The

I show three versions of the new cite, in addition to the existing Anderson 2000 citation. The first version, with a lengthy quote, probably doesn't fit the current reference style. (see William_Howard_Taft#References) The second version, has a shorter quote, while the third has no quote at all.

Text with three versions of cite added

One reason for Roosevelt's action was his desire to neutralize a potential rival for the presidency: Taft's success in the Philippines had not gone unnoticed in the American press. 

This is a dubious statement about TR and I have not seen any TR specialists repeat the argument Anderson made back in 1982 about TR's motivation. [see Anderson in Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 1, p 26]. The quotes from Manila are not relevant on this point. The relevant sentence in the article should be dropped absent solid info on TR. The argument is NOT mentioned in the standard biographies of TR such as Harbaugh (1963) p 182; Nathan Miller (1992) p 423; Brands (1997) p 594; Morris (2001) 2:313; Dalton (2002); Cordery (2003) p 109' or Doris Kearns Goodwin (2013). The best coverage is in Henry F. Pringle biography of Taft (1939) 1:237-255 online --Pringle explores lots of evidence but zero indication of blocking Taft. Rjensen (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What about inline attribution such as "Anderson suggests that Roosevelt may have been motivated by ..."?--Rjensen (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

all TR and Taft scholars ignore the argument he has made since 1982--he does not present much evidence and we should ignore it too. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen:@Wehwalt: The TR connection seemed fuzzy, so if it is not supportable, removal is best. Lent (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Taft's popularity in the Phillipines looks to be supported. Here's a suggested insertion.

In January 1903, when Governor Taft's departure seemed likely, Manila residents held a "We want Governor Taft" march and rally.

Lent (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

yes the evidence is very strong that Taft was popular in the Philippines and this should be mentioned. Pringle (1939) has good coverage of this. The Filipinos of course did not have a vote for president. TR had serious competition from Mark Hanna for the 1904 nomination, not from Taft. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References

As the Governor's residence has had many spellings, I think the link is helpful. Also a march on the Governor's residence seems a notable event. Lent (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong link to a Revolutionary In the 1910s

UNder the section regarding the history of President Taft; concerning Nicaruaga, the that should be to Jaun Jose Estrada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Jos%C3%A9_Estrada is instead for some reason given to the football player of later years Juan Estrada. WTF?! lol This is a big mistake. If anyone can fix this, please do so. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:96:2875:B710:D12C:2330 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Nice catch. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Acting President???

"In the article it says that when Roosevelt was away Taft was in effect acting President. Wouldn't Vice President Charles Warren Fairbanks have been effect the acting President in Roosevelt's absence. Was Fairbanks absent as well if so the article should make that clear.--The Shadow Treasurer 04:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

vice presidents were nobodies before the 1950s. TR trusted Taft and was setting him up for the presidency. Rjensen 04:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)"

It is immaterial whether vice presidents were nobodies at the time.

The chain of command dictates that Fairbanks as Vice President should have been running things back home whilst Roosevelt was away. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It didn't work that way for the most part, pre-Eisenhower. Vice Presidents weren't kept in the loop, listened to, or invited (for the most part) to Cabinet meetings. They certainly weren't considered second-in-command, just functionaries who really dealt with the Senate more than anything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory and legality is what I meant. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no such law then. VP only duty was to preside over Senate & take over at death od president. When McKinley was slowly dying, TR stayed in New England and played no role. Rjensen (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This can't be right

John D. Stevens (born 1951) is an American composer/arranger, tubist, and brass pedagogue. He performs with the Wisconsin Brass Quintet, the brass chamber ensemble in residence at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It was John Frank Stevens, apparently. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Third paragraph for "Civil rights" section, is so... not you Wehwalt, I don't know how to describe but it feels too long and rough, even NPOV (because is long & rough), I think it could use a major cut, just mention he spoke here and there will be fine.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't write that as you probably guessed. I've cut it back considerably.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I check the version that passed FAC so yeah, I have guessed and just looking for evidence. It's something that just not quite fit, or maybe I translate too many of your work, I think around 100 articles by now.--Jarodalien (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"he wrote his brother Horace in 1929", Horace is his younger brother right? I'm asking because in Chinese, younger & older brother is descripted by totally different words.--Jarodalien (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, younger. We have an article on Horace, I've piped it.---Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No mention about the Skull and Bones except the lede, so perhaps add a footnote?--Jarodalien (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added to the body on that and sourced it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow! I just double check with your "Sandbox1", this is exactly the 100th featured article I translate from you!--Jarodalien (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing all that. It gives me pleasure to know the articles can be helpful in other languages. And thank you for pointing out the things that need fixing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

The first two paragraphs of the section on Civil Rights should be removed. They are incorrect for Taft and refer to Woodrow Wilson, the next President.

How Woodrow Wilson’s racist policies eroded the Black civil service

https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/how-woodrow-wilsons-racist-segregation-order-eroded-the-black-civil-service/

---

The Federal Government and Negro Workers Under President Woodrow Wilson

https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/shfgpr00 Sjaves (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

How are they incorrect for Taft? I just looked at the bio of Booker T. Washington cited and it seems to be accurately portrayed. The sources you mention agree that Wilson acted very badly on race, but say little about what Taft did beyond that the Republicans did better than Wilson, which is not saying much.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Taft robbed

In August 1920 while living in New Haven, Taft's house was robbed by serial killer Carl Panzram. The stolen goods were used to buy a yacht. A gun among the items taken was used in other crimes. Colonial Computer 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting but probably not worth including in this (already long) article,--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Visiting Scholar Wehwalt has worked on it.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing phrasing on opening line about "both offices"

I realize that it's technically true that Taft is the only person to have been both a president and a chief justice of the Supreme Court, but the current phrasing ("the only person to have held both offices") implies--or at least leaves opens the possibility--that other presidents may have gone on to be associate justices of the Supreme Court (not chief justices), which is not true. Is there a clean way to phrase it to remove that implication? --GiantInsects (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably, but it will likely take more words and require sourcing in the article. Is it really needed?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

"HoWard TaFt" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect HoWard TaFt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#HoWard TaFt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Civil Service Commission

please change ((Civil Service Commission)) to ((United States Civil Service Commission|Civil Service Commission)) 2601:541:4580:8500:E94E:4960:179:5893 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done, although without the piped link. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

Change: William Howard Taft (September 15, 1857 – March 8, 1930) was the 27th president of the United States (1909–1913) and the tenth chief justice of the United States (1921–1930), the only person to have held both offices.

To: William Howard Taft (September 15, 1857 – March 8, 1930) was an American politician and jurist who served as the 27th president of the United States from 1909 to 1913 and the tenth chief justice of the United States from 1921 to 1930, the only person to have held both offices. EdwardYT (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks for your request! Wikipedia is better when users work to improve it! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

Please change the personal details section of the infobox to list Taft's weight during his presidency. Ex-Facto (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —Sirdog (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Fix Civil Rights Section

(Note, I've never contributed to wikipedia, I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft#Civil_rights The civil rights section states that William Taft: "A supporter of free immigration, Taft vetoed a bill passed by Congress and supported by labor unions that would have restricted unskilled laborers by imposing a literacy test". However from what it seems, the book cited in this claim is wrong. The only bill I could find is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917 and it was vetoed by Woodrow Wilson (and even then, still passed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.218.116 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Governor-Director of the Philippines “preceded by” is incorrect. Should be Adna Romanza Chaffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.0.19 (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No. MacArthur's article makes this clear. Taft succeeded MacArthur as the executive power in the Philippines and although Chaffee had the same title as MacArthur, Chaffee was subordinate to Taft. Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)