Talk:Leonard Wood

Familial history and descendants

This article is very informative but fails to mention anything of his personal life -- who were his parents, siblings, etc.? Did he marry or have any children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTech (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Familial

Yes, he did have children and get married. He was my great freat great great great grandfather, so I'd say that obviously, he had children, or I wouldn't exist. But you're right, they do not talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.73.19 (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gingrich

In my opinion, the fact that Wood's presidential candidacy is being discussed by a 2012 candidate (one with a PhD in history) is relevant and belongs in the article. It means Wood is not forgotten and his political experience is used as a history lesson today. Rjensen (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree.Dwight Burdette (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote was deleted for the second time because it violates the following: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)."

Newt Gingrich's comments about Romney and his comparison to Leonard Wood have no enduring significance what so ever, particularly to Leonard Wood's legacy. In fact they are an insult to his legacy, so by adding them you are not paying tribute to Wood.David Straub (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever to positively or negatively promote Leonard Wood's legacy. If that had been my purpose, I would have chosen different wording, depending on my purpose. My contribution was deliberately neutral. I merely reported what was said without any bias towards the merit of the comment. Leonard Wood is an obscure personage who was made less obscure by Gingrinch's mention of him. That is why Gingrich's comments merit mention in a 'Legacy' section.Dwight Burdette (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

the newspaper business is a red herring. Fact is that a presidential campaign in 2012 is studying the Wood campaign of 1920 to understand how to overthrow a front runner (Romney). That is significant. Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

MENINGIOMA

IT IS STATED IN THE TEXT THAT HIS MENINGIOMA WAS CAUSED BY A CHEMICAL EXPOSURE. THERE IS ACTUALLY NO KNOWN ETIOLOGY FOR MENINGIOMAS. THANK YOU. KARIN M. TANSEK MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.223.2 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Supposed Medal of Honor action controversy

I question the passages on the "controversy" surrounding Wood's Medal of Honor. His date of rank as a first lieutenant was January 1886. His Medal of Honor actions took place during the summer of 1886. Even though his commission was approved during or after the Medal of Honor action, his date of rank was still prior to it. That makes invalid the argument that he was ineligible for the medal because he was a contract surgeon and not a member of the military.

Does anyone else want to weight in?

Billmckern (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've done more research since my first comment. It appears from contemporary news accounts that the 1916-1917 effort to strip Wood of his Medal of Honor was led by Democratic members of the US House who were unhappy that the Democratic Wilson administration would not remove the Republican Wood as Chief of Staff of the Army.

This discovery makes me even more certain that the "controversy" section needs to go.

Anyone?

Billmckern (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I went ahead with the change.

Billmckern (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Didn't see your comment until now. I've done quite a bit of research into this. Your citation of Wood's effective date of commission is wrong, unfortunately. The Army's adjutant general determined that 5 Jan was the date of nomination. It was confirmed on 30 July, and not accepted until 11 Aug. That, per the AG's determination, "is the date on which his status as a commissioned officer of the Army began." He wrote that 'It will thus be seen that he was acting assistant (i.e., contract) surgeon during the period from June 17, 1885, until August 10, 1886 (including practically all of the "summer of 1886" when the deeds of gallantry were performed), and that he did not become an officer of the Army until August 11, 1886, when he accepted his appointment as assistant surgeon of the Army.' Reference is AGO file 2094824. You can also view a summary of this document on the report for the 1916/17 MoH review board at: https://books.google.com/books?id=TUZUAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA298&lpg=RA1-PA298&dq=%22case+no.+997+(7694-94)%22&source=bl&ots=o1PChfY2gW&sig=ACfU3U3Y7EAgIsKI4RVA8lovD7LXdOiTvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRoKS3_eLkAhVIoZ4KHZaaAyMQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22case%20no.%20997%20(7694-94)%22&f=false Foxtrot5151 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wood's most authoritative biographer agrees, saying expressly that Wood was a civilian at the time of the qualifying act, and thus ineligible: McCallum, Leonard Wood pp 45-46. That was the citation you removed. Mears, The Medal of Honor, pp. 57-58 covers the same defect, quoting the AG: "it does not appear from the papers presented at the time whether it was made clear that General Wood was not an officer of the Army at the time when the distinguished gallantry was performed." Foxtrot5151 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Foxtrot5151: I think the sources I cited make it clear that when Wood's commission was approved in August 1886, it was backdated so that the effective date would be January 5. I also noted when I checked today that McCallum doesn't even mention James Hay's 1916 attempt to revoke Wood's award. There's also the fact that the Miles board didn't revoke Wood's award when it met later in 1916 after Hay's provision to review Medals of Honor was enacted. Miles may have had a vested interest in letting it stand, but I don't think any of the other panel members did.

What do you think is the best way to handle this in the article?

Billmckern (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

So the AG's opinion was that date of rank was not the same as the date of confirmation and acceptance, which actually dictated eligibility. Basically they gave him the benefit of the same date of rank as the nomination date for the sake of equity, since the date a prospective officer could actually accept would vary widely and is largely based on factors beyond his control. But he wasn't an officer until it was confirmed and accepted for purposes of awards. The War Dept. discovered that Wood's award had violated its policy in 1915 when researching a bill of relief for another assistant surgeon who had actually performed valor in combat (which Wood did not-- apparently he was never actually in combat himself, despite others in the expedition seeing it). That's another material defect, since the War Dept. required actual combat valor by that time, not merely meritorious service. According to the AG, "the case of General Wood is the only case known to this office in which there has been any departure from the practice of the Department based upon the decision of Assistant Secretary of War Grant, referred to hereinbefore, to deny applications for the award of the medal of honor for meritorious acts performed while serving as an acting assistant (i.e., contract) surgeon."

Foxtrot5151 (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Foxtrot5151: So what do you think is the best way to handle this in the article? There are conflicting references, but the fact remains that Wood's award was not revoked. Is there a way to lay out the whole story without making the article so overly long and detailed that the point is lost?

Billmckern (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that it's impossible to divorce both the medal's authorization and retention from favoritism, considering that it was materially flawed and against law and regulation from the beginning, and the same patron (Miles) presided over both the authorizing and retention. His role was a direct conflict of interest and potentially invalidates the board's results, considering that they struck down other medals for civilians, including at least one other contract surgeon (Mary Walker). The only possible explanation is impropriety. So, I think the award's unlawfulness should be mentioned even if only in passing. The joker bill probably was only partly aimed at Wood if at all-- section 122 of the army's appropriations bill was primarily aimed at revoking the 865 medals of the 27th Maine and several from the 27th New Jersey regiment, which had been a focal point of lobbying by the Medal of Honor Legion. The organization had been trying to revoke those awards since the 1890s. The fact that these claims about Wood being the target appeared in multiple editorials isn't surprising considering his many detractors, who were equally aware that he was a civilian at the time of his brevet recommendation, had not actually been in combat, and had not personally captured Geronimo. But, in fact there were far more people (including many legitimate MoH recipients) lobbying for revocation for a different reason for far longer.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Foxtrot5151: See what you think of the rewrite I just finished. Does that get it done?

Billmckern (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

i have a souvenir from Leonard wood he give a pin to my grand grandfather 🥰🥰🥰 i know this person🥰🥰🥰 210.23.226.238 (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@ 210.23.226.238 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)