Talk:Theodore Roosevelt/Archive 2

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


Cartoon Date

1910 cartoon shows Roosevelt's multiple roles to 1919

The title of the cartoon "1910 cartoon shows Roosevelt's multiple roles to 1919" must surely be incorrect unless the cartoonist had precognitive abilities, Wolbo 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion

Hello all. I've done a partial revert to correct some vandalism from on 5 Feb 07. Bdevoe 22:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but this article is particularly prone to vandalism. I feel like I'm here to revert something once a day, and I'm only catching a little of it. How about some kind of protection for it? -- Oaxaca dan 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little upset, because it seems that someone has gone onto the page and revised the simplified spelling paragraph back into normal English. Could someone please correct this? Thank you. 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First Marriage section problems

The paragraph that talks about Alice being called sister by her siblings, which appears before she was given to her aunt for care, really confuses me. Was there time travel so that she lived during the second marriage with her siblings and then traveled back in time to be given to her aunt? I'm guesing that some point about Alice and TR's relationship later in life, but that isn't related to TR's first marriage.Mulp 01:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read that Alice spent some limited time during visits with her half-siblings when they were young. "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" Rickster77 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Theres some stuff in the death section thats not about his death. Im not sure where i should put it though... JamesBenjamin 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


...The item about the White House Gang could go in White House section.

Then maybe a new section: Religious Views and Life Philosophy to cover religious practices, Freemason, views and strenuous life, physical activity etc. This new section could go right after "World War I" section.

The item about his name preference: "Teddy vs. Theodore" could go in childhood, education and personal life. How does that sound?
Rickster77 00:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct Pronunciation of Roosevelt's Last Name

This can no longer be in dispute because we have Roosevelt, himself, pronouncing it on an 1898 audio file and also corresponding with several people on the correct pronunciation "Rose-ah-velt." See audio of TR announcing bugle calls with that pronuciation in 1898 at as well as TR from a letter on the same at and finally from the Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia at the Theodore Roosevelt Association (TRA) Web site at SimonATL 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt makes the cover of Time Magazine

Roosevelt was on the cover of Time Magazine as the feature article on June 26, 2006 entitled, The 20th Century Express - At home and abroad, Theodore Roosevelt was the locomotive President, the man who drew his flourishing nation into the future. Any bets if the editors read our article. I also heard that Time Magazine's editors did consult with the Theodore Roosevelt Association in researching their cover story. SimonATL 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Other" section

The first item states TR's first photo was of him looking out window at Lincoln funeral train. I have never seen any factual record to verify that one of these two faces was TR. I think we need to stick to the facts and re-write this to say one of the two distant faces could possibly be TR. The faces are way too small in the photo. The photo by the way was an area wide photo of Lincoln Funeral train with many distant faces. To say it IS a picture of TR is really not correct. This has never been proven to show TR, . . Or has it been??

You are correct about the controversy surrounding that photo. While many authoritive accounts says something like, "It is thought to be a young Theodore Roosevelt and his sister..." or words to that effect, the Theodore Roosevelt Association has traced this photo to TR's grandfather's home, indicating on their web site that in this photo, a young Theodore, "Watches Abraham Lincoln's funeral procession from an upstairs window of his grandfather's house on Union Square, New York City. With him are his younger brother Elliott and a friend named Edith Kermit Carow." See SimonATL 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the only good indians

Can anyone verify that Roosevelt actually said "I don't go so far as to think that 'the only good Indians are dead Indians', but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth" ? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer - TR said the following words about American Indians in a speech in January 1886 in South Dakota, which is readable in connection with the subject in hand. He is contrasting the cowboy with the indian. Interestingly, after attacking stereotypes of the cowboy as "ruffians and desperadoes" he goes indicates his contempt for the Indians that he had seen out in the Dakota territory and Wyoming where he went to hunt and ranch from approximately 1883-1886. Bear in mind the the Indians that he had seen were far from the sterotypical "noble red man" of earlier sagas. Many displaced Indians had been forced to survive by stealing the white man's cattle that had also displaced the American bison. Their actions were the direct consequence of their having lost the Wars of the Plains to the US Army. Having witnessed the slaughter of tens of millions of bison in both the great southern and northern herds, the Indians were more often than not cheated out of the US government's food allocations on their reservations by crooked agents. The story is widely known. Roosevelt simply reflects the popular Dakota stereotypes toward the defeated indians that the cowboys and ranchers with whom he had associated himself held. Here's what TR said:
"My friends seem to think," said Roosevelt, "that I can talk only on two subjects-the bear and the cowboy-and the one I am to handle this evening is the more formidable of the two. After all, the cowboys are not the ruffians and desperadoes that the nickel library prints them. Of course, in the frontier towns where the only recognized amusements are vices, there is more or less of riot and disorder. But take the cowboy on his native heath, on the round-up, and you will find in him the virtues of courage, endurance, good fellowship, and generosity. He is not sympathetic. The cowboy divides all humanity into two classes, the sheep and the goats, those who can ride bucking horses and those who can't; and I must say he doesn't care much for the goats.
"I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Take three hundred low families of New York and New Jersey, support them, for fifty years, in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the 'cowboys who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers of the plains. As for the soldiers, an Indian chief once asked Sheridan for a cannon. 'What! do you want to kill my soldiers with it?' asked the general. 'No,' replied the chief, 'Want to kill cowboy; kill soldier with a club.'
"Ranch life is ephemeral. Fences are spreading. all over the western country, and, by the end of the century, most of it will be under cultivation. I, for one, shall be sorry to see it go; for when the cowboy disappears, one of the best and healthiest phases of western life will disappear with him."

Source: Roosevelt in the Bad Lands, Hermann Hagedorn (Boston, 1921), pp. 354-356

A COMMENT on TR's opinion. Let's remember that TR was only 28 when he said this, he had seen for himself the horrible condition under which the Indians were living under, having been defeated and put on reservations less than 10 years before his speech. Custer had been defeated less than 10 years before and anti-Indian sentiment still ran high. Also when he became a Commissioner of the US Civil Service and had to tour government installations from coast to coast and actually witnessed, first hand, the squalor and neglect of native Americans, his attitude toward them softened considerably and he fought on the behalf against the corruption of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the wholesale theft of provisions set aside for the Indians by crooked federal agents.SimonATL 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First marriage

Where is the content for this heading? It makes the overall article weaker by raising reader expectations Fidelia 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Puck cartoon

In the "Puck" cartoon of TR handing over his polices to Taft, can we get an identification of who the bellman carrying the Big Stick is a caricature of? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to an edit by User:SimonATL to the image while it was here on en:Wikipedia, it is William Loeb. Unfortunately that info wasn't transfered when the image was moved to Commons; I have corrected that shameful oversight. -- Infrogmation 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


I think it is William Loeb in the pic but it sure does look like Theodore Roosevelt playing all the characters but maybe it is someone else. Who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


What happened to the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbablake 2 (talkcontribs) 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the Theodore Roosevelt article, you inappropriately removed a word and added blank indentation at the start of a paragraph, which the Wiki software makes into preformated text. I fixed it for you. HTH, -- Infrogmation 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First oath of office

The article at present says "Roosevelt did not swear on the Bible nor on any other book, making him unique among presidents." The first phrase of the sentence is sourced, the second had a request for a reference. This list on memory.loc was just given as a citation, but I am removing it because as far as I can see it does not actually confirm the final phrase of the sentence. This list of what presidents took the oath by lists several as "unknown". Unless we have a specific reference showing that all other presidents than TR took their oaths on a book, I suggest we change the phrase to something on the order of "Roosevelt did not swear on the Bible nor on any other book, contrary to the ususual tradition of US presidents." Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 11:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the passage to a less sweeping claim per the above. -- Infrogmation 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

power of the presidency

The article currently says (without citation):

Overall, historians credit Roosevelt for changing the nation's political system by permanently placing the presidency at center stage...

Historians do generally agree that he did this, but whether they credit or blame him for it is another matter; that an expansion of presidential power was a good thing is a quite controversial thesis. A number of critics of neoconservatism, in particular, blame Roosevelt for setting a precedent whereby the presidency simply seizes power for itself. See, among other sources, Thomas Woods's 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, pp. 136–142 (admittedly not the world's most neutral source, but it was the first one handy; there are plenty of more sober analyses, from both the left and the libertarian right, that criticize Roosevelt on this point). As a more trivial point, Mark Twain was also not a fan of his policies ("insane & irresponsible"). --Delirium 09:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Views on Race

His views on Indians and countries peopled with an "inferior race" need to listed to make this article less hagiographic. I have accordingly added excerpts from "Winning the west" Indianminister 08:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Roosevelt, a white patrician of European heritage simply reflected the predominant world-view of his race and class, that the Anglo-Europeans were superior culturally to all other races. Think about it, however, this was an early 20th Century view. While not justifiable in the early 21st Century, before we call him a racist, etc, let's remember the context and the era. It's easy to pass judgement on people from the last century based on today's higher standards. Actually, TR was the first US President to invite a black man to dine in the White House, Booker T. Washington and he sought his counsel on federal appointments in the south. Also, TR decried and publically denounced lynching as degrading to both victims as well as perpetrators.
Re attitudes towards native Americans, this is discussed in a section above, while you mentioned in the article that TR thought the struggle between "civilization and savagery" why would this be suprising to you. The native Americans were locked in the proverbial Stone Age when the whites first came to North America. How do expect someone of Roosevelt's class, education and training would view paleolithic aboriginal inhabitants both in North America and in Australia? When TR was president, he severely criticized Indian fighter, Nelson Miles, for the massacre of Indians at Wounded Knee, writing to him, "In the Wounded Knee fight, the troops under your command killed squaws and children as well as unarmed Indians and armed Indians who had ceased to resist." Roosevelt also critized his leadership saying of Miles, "that you, who were not actually present, could not prevent these outrages, and could not have prefented them had you been present. Source. Nelson A. Miles, a Hero to His Men, by By Peter R. Demontravel, 1998, Kent State
Re his evolving attitude towards American Indians

Answer - TR said the following words about American Indians in a speech in January 1886 in South Dakota, which is readable in connection with the subject in hand. He is contrasting the cowboy with the indian. Interestingly, after attacking stereotypes of the cowboy as "ruffians and desperadoes" he goes indicates his contempt for the Indians that he had seen out in the Dakota territory and Wyoming where he went to hunt and ranch from approximately 1883-1886. Bear in mind the the Indians that he had seen were far from the sterotypical "noble red man" of earlier sagas. Many displaced Indians had been forced to survive by stealing the white man's cattle that had also displaced the American bison. Their actions were the direct consequence of their having lost the Wars of the Plains to the US Army. Having witnessed the slaughter of tens of millions of bison in both the great southern and northern herds, the Indians were more often than not cheated out of the US government's food allocations on their reservations by crooked agents. The story is widely known. Roosevelt simply reflects the popular Dakota stereotypes toward the defeated indians that the cowboys and ranchers with whom he had associated himself held. Here's what TR said: "My friends seem to think," said Roosevelt, "that I can talk only on two subjects-the bear and the cowboy-and the one I am to handle this evening is the more formidable of the two. After all, the cowboys are not the ruffians and desperadoes that the nickel library prints them. Of course, in the frontier towns where the only recognized amusements are vices, there is more or less of riot and disorder. But take the cowboy on his native heath, on the round-up, and you will find in him the virtues of courage, endurance, good fellowship, and generosity. He is not sympathetic. The cowboy divides all humanity into two classes, the sheep and the goats, those who can ride bucking horses and those who can't; and I must say he doesn't care much for the goats. "I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Take three hundred low families of New York and New Jersey, support them, for fifty years, in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the 'cowboys who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers of the plains. As for the soldiers, an Indian chief once asked Sheridan for a cannon. 'What! do you want to kill my soldiers with it?' asked the general. 'No,' replied the chief, 'Want to kill cowboy; kill soldier with a club.' "Ranch life is ephemeral. Fences are spreading. all over the western country, and, by the end of the century, most of it will be under cultivation. I, for one, shall be sorry to see it go; for when the cowboy disappears, one of the best and healthiest phases of western life will disappear with him." Source: Roosevelt in the Bad Lands, Hermann Hagedorn (Boston, 1921), pp. 354-356

A COMMENT on TR's opinion. Let's remember that TR was only 28 when he said this, he had seen for himself the horrible condition under which the Indians were living under, having been defeated and put on reservations less than 10 years before his speech. Custer had been defeated less than 10 years before and anti-Indian sentiment still ran high. Also when he became a Commissioner of the US Civil Service and had to tour government installations from coast to coast and actually witnessed, first hand, the squalor and neglect of native Americans, his attitude toward them softened considerably and he fought on the behalf against the corruption of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the wholesale theft of provisions set aside for the Indians by crooked federal agents.SimonATL 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


OK, I can understand that people might often mispronounce "Roosevelt", but I've never heard anyone get the number of syllables wrong, which makes that comment seem strange and pointless. Simply stating that he pronounced the first vowel sound as a long O instead of a long U should be sufficient. - (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Justification and Whitewashing of Imperial Policy

Much of this article exhibits a strong bias towards justifying Roosevelt's imperialistic policies. That the Roosevelt Corollary was added to intervene 'when governmental corruption made it necessary', and that Roosevelt intended to 'help' "underdeveloped" nations seem particularly absurd an strongly exemplify a racist and paternalistic justification of violent intervention into Latin American nations. Considering much of T.R.'s legacy is cementing an aggressive imperialist approach to hemispherical affairs it is very important to amend this article. SDali2008 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Understand, but Roosevelt didn't "invent" imperialism but it was already a "going concern" and TR simply felt that the US as "Giant of the West" needed to not stand idly by while Britain, France and Germany gobbled up more countries. He didn't really realized the "price" that any Empire ultimately has to pay in blood, treasure and morality to hold together its empire, witness what the US's Iraq experience is costing it. SimonATL (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that our friend TR is entirely with out sin! how patriotic!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it suddenly important to frame Roosevelt's beliefs in a 21st century manner? Why is it so impossible to believe that he really did have these intentions when going on these imperialist adventures? This is the type of revisionist thinking that threatens to cloud what actually happened- sticking with the facts of the day and using the best possible sources is always the correct approach. Monsieurdl 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TR 'helped' Panama declare independance? Charging imperialism is hardly a 21st century critique, TR was widely attacked as an aggressive imperialist at the time. This article is strongly pro-Roosevelt, glorifying development in colonial possessions, ignoring popular opposition in the Philippines, the Platt Amendment and Domination of Cuba. This article regurgitates government rhetoric as fact. TR's role in imperialism is dramatic, using his involvement in the Spanish American War to catapult him to power. The Roosevelt Correlary marks a very important turning point in U.S. foreign policy, reversing the revolutionary Monroe doctrine and rejecting Central American sovereignty and asserting the U.S. as the active hemispherical hegemon. This article fails on several front, recognizing the historical importance of TR in forming the new American empire, establishing NPOV tone and analysis that delineates rhetoric from reality, glowing admiration of a controversial leader, and apologist appraisal of imperialism that should sicken anyone outside the U.S., as well as any Americans who seek an honest evaluation of U.S. action and the growth of American power. Much of TR scholarship is ignored, and it embarrasses the wikipedia community that this page is not NPOV tagged. (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Critic says the TR article "embarrasses the wikipedia community." This is interesting as I didn't know that he had polled the wikipedia community for its opinion of this article. But he has some good points, opposition to TR's policies on Cuba and Panama are not limited to modern times. In fact, there was an anti-imperialism movement that vehemently opposed the extension of American influence and control outside of the US and which extended into Cuba and the Phillipines. But let's remember TR did NOT invent the age of Imperialism. But he DID plug into the concept. By definition, this critic thinks that all aspects of so-called imperialism are evil and that all wikipedians would agree on this. But this is not established fact. Was TR controversial? Sure he was. Without a doubt, he moved more and more towards the recognition that the political institutions needed reform and he did it from municipal through state through federal positions and then finally into the White House. Interesting that this controversial leader is the ONLY US President who has been referred to and quoted by virtually every democratic and republican candidate in the 2008 US presidential campaign. Not only that in modern polls, in an age of highly polarized politics, in which George W. Bush was viewed as 6th best president by republicans and 6th worst by democrats, TR was placed in #5 position by BOTH republicans and democrats. Why is this so? Because he was just a jingoist imperialist? No - because, in many ways he epitomized the best aspects of BOTH major US political parties. As a republican he advocated high tarrifs and yet he demanded that both labor and management reach a settlement of a major coal strike. And he didn't call out the army to support the owners, either. He was the first truely environmental president setting aside 10% of the federal lands to preserve them for the future. He understood that there were places where only a strong federal government could solve regional and national problems. Look at his advocacy of strong federal support for irrigation in the West. He did this for all Americans. He was against the tyranny of either management or labor. He was essentially for what he called "the square deal" that benefited ALL Americans and not just any one group - both management and labor. While other Republicans fought against labor, Roosevelt, even though he was a life-long Republican, well understood that the US was coming into an industrial age in which there was a natural "combination" of industrial forces into the hands of an increasingly powerful group of the so-called "captains of industry." Not stopping with stand-pat resistance to labor organization, TR also realized and wrote and spoke extensively that there would also be natural and inevitable "combinations" as they were called in the late 19th Century and early 20th century of labor into organizations who would demand collective labor agreements. As for the Roosevelt Corralary to the Monroe Doctrine. TR put this forth not to absorb over every small Western hemisphere country, but rather to protect them from European powers seizing customs offices in port cities to extract debt payments. TR well understood that the Europeans would expand their influence from the ports right into the hearts of these small countries. He knew that an American guarantee of debt payment backed up by force sometimes, as in the example of the Dominican Republic when the US took over customs and balanced payments completly in only a couple years, kept the Germans, the French and British OUT of the Dominican Republic (DR) . When DR leadership literally offered the country to the US as a territory to be annexed and offered statehood, TR turned them down flat. Look at Cuba and the Phillipines, TR realized that only a reduction of tarriff barriers against these countries would help grown their economies. He fought against both republican and democrat opposition and the business interests to lower their tarrifs.

Sure TR was and is controversial, but he was the FIRST president since Lincoln to grasp growing national problems that had been ignored for over a half a century, face up to them and demand effective national strategies to address them. And to these problems he brought his world-class education, experience at all levels of government, a consistent policy of fairness, equity and the square deal and pushed and shoved an isolationist and increasingly socially polarized American society into the 20th Century. Of COURSE there were aspects of this pushing and shoving that need discussion in this article, but TR was no pinheaded cowboy jingoist, he brought a coherent imperialist view to both national and international issues and set the US on a course of growth that created the modern US society - yes, and for better or worse a much changed country from the post-Civil War country of his childhood.

Any country on earth would be blessed to have a national leader as well prepared for the demands of his age as was Theodore Roosevelt in his time. We can no longer afford on-the-job training for national leaders who are told what to think by their so-called handlers. We need leaders actually prepared for national leadership. SimonATL (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

TR did not seek to mimic the Eurpoean powers in creating an "empire," to some extent because it was not necessary. Europe used imperial possessions as sources of raw materials that could be sent to the mother country's industries. With its own abundant natural resources, America did not need this sort of empire. And as with many other terms, "imperialist" does not mean in 2008 what it meant in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Then it meant as described above - overseas possessions owned lock, stock and barrel by a mother country that administered them not for their own good but for the good of the mother country. America did acquire possessions after the Spanish-American War, but in the thinking of the day, to westernize them and thereby advance them. The "empire" was not conceived as permanent. Cuba was given its independence almost immediately. The Phillipines were promised independence and got it. Puerto Rico regularly holds free elections on what it wants to do, and if it ever chooses independence (which regularly come in last among the alternatives in these elections), it would get it. Paternalistic it might have been, misguided perhaps, but not an empire in the European sense. Today, "imperialist" it is used negatively to describe America as a country that wants to create an "empire" subservient to itself. In my opinion, that is not so. America is not imperialist, it is internationalist. We accept that today, but in TR's time, when isolationism was the mantra, it was a dirty word. America, in the past and still today, has always been, as TR knew, a force for good. The goal has not been to create mini-Americas, but rather to bring democracy and stability to parts of the world where it did not exist. (With TR then, and still today.) As an example, David Halberstam, a fine historian and wonderful writer, but to be fair, a man always alert to flaws in America and its policies, nevertheless points out in "The Coldest Winter," the democracy, freedom and economy of South Korea is a direct result of the American interest in and influence on the country. Versus the wasteland that is North Korea. Likewise consider the American "empire" in Western Europe after World War II and how it flourished as a bastion of democracy and economic progress because of American protection and, in the beginning, American money (the Marshall Plan). Compare it with the Soviet empire in eastern Europe kept in place with guns. (Remember Hungary in 1956?) And which no longer exists. TR sought to protect American interests in the Western hemisphere with the Roosevelt Corollary, take steps to protect America and its interests elsewhere through a well-thought out foreign policy backed by a fortified military (especially the Navy), and understood that the more the rest of the world looked like America in terms of democracy, economy and stability, the less America would be threatened. Some empire! His international projection of American ideals involved an international presence. But it took World War II and the role it forced on America after the war was won for Americans finally to accept Theodore Roosevelt's internationalism.
From a Theodore Roosevelt Association Member HarryH of Atlanta, GA

SimonATL (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

POV? Yes or No - Why? Let's wrap this up. What's the consensus?

Yes, the article contains a great many number of pluses, but they are aptly born out by many written sources. The article also contains discussions of some of TR's negatives, ego, immaturity, impulsiveness, big mouth, occasional lapses of candot - including quotes fro some of his biggest historical critics such as Henry Pringle (19310) which can continue to be expanded upon. SimonATL (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo problems

I realize that Wikipedia articles are encouraged to have uniform-sized illustrations. However, in the spirit of WP:IAR we should also realize that making a good article sometimes demands a few enlargements. Particularly photos of 50 men of which just one is the essay subject, sometimes defy even identifying the subject without fixing the photo. I've done that for 3 key black and whites in this article. See what you think. I also noted that there was very large empty space at one point, which provided room for a enlargement of the official portrait, which is about as good a visual impression as we have of the standing subject. So I blew that up, too. I hope it works on everybody's readers, and invite comment on this. Also, feel free to enlarge anything else in this article that gives you squints. I personaly had trouble even with a 21 inch viewer, and my eyes are fine. SBHarris 06:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


I am doing a paper for school about TR as a tyrannical leader...I know I shouldn't be looking at wikipedia to begin with, but I am just to get an idea. Anyways, this article is essentially all pro-Teddy. I feel like this is not right and not encyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is perfectly able to add good sourced material that showed his flaws and negative moments, but a)using appropriate language, not ego trip as an example, and b)judging him by the standards of today, which is not fair nor just is what I vehemently oppose. I'm all for improving this article, and will always encourage more! Monsieurdl (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article sometimes has overlooked some of the more negative aspects of TR's political life, specifically. Although I'm a member of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, I, for one, am not blind to this criticsm. Accordingly, I'm adding some more background where needed. For example, in the discussion of TR's role in the 1884 Republican National Convention, I added the following:
"Refusing to join other Mugwumps in supporting Democrat Grover Cleveland, the Democratic nominee, he debated with his friend Henry Cabot Lodge the plusses and minuses of staying loyal or straying. When asked by a reporter whether he would support Blain, Roosevelt replied that, "That question I decline to answer. It is a subject I do not care to talk about." [16] While Roosevelt complained, "off the record," about the Blain's nomination to a reporter upon leaving the convention, in probably the most crucial moment of his young political career, in 1884 the young Roosevelt resisted the very instinct to bolt from the Party that would overwhelm his political sense by 1912. When another reporter quoted Roosevelt saying that he had indicated that he would give "'hearty support'" to any decent democrat," in an account of the Convention, Roosevelt would later take great (and to some historical critics such as [[Henry Pringle|Pringle],) very disingenuous pains to distance himself from his own earlier comment indicating that it had not been for publication [17]."
Some historians such as Henry Pringle made a profession of reading as many negative and controversial readings into mostly TR's political conduct. His biography of TR, written in the 1930s, swung the balance of historical opinion sharply AGAINST TR. More modern books such as Edumund Morris and David McCullough have tried to restore balance and also to make use of newer historical data. SimonATL (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
On the POV or NON-POV issue, this article makes extensive use of historians such as Henry Pringle who were happy to point out TR's "vices" as well as his virtues. He was the supreme egoist and even one of his greatest admireres, Edmund Morris speaks of "his favorite person pronoun, I," but that said, by the time TR left Havard, the extent of his many talents was not only apparent to himself, but to all who got past his youthful emotionalism and enthusiasm. He never lost much of this intense personal energy and magnetism. You couple incredible intellectual gifts, a world-class education, the powers of observation of a trained naturalist and a trained historian, a mostly secure financial situation making daily survival not an issue except for the many self-imposed challeges Roosevelt made for himself, a strong body (after years of struggle) and an intense desire to "make something of himself" and what do you expect? When he died in 1919, he was almost universally considered the greatest living American. People from every civilized country celebrated his accomplishments. While some people spoke of his incredible ambitious and egoistic nature, let's remember the whys behind it and what was driving him? Wealth, drink, wine, women and song? No, he was clearly an intensely idealistic and romantic individual yet with an incredibly well-developed pragmatic sense. As he said, "Keep you eyes on the stars but your feet on solid ground." He never lacked the ability or willingness to demonize his political opponents and was forever convinced of the righteousness of his particular cause of the moment, but consider the causes he DID take up, political reform for his entire career. He never left an office remarkably unimproved, from a young New York assemblyman to the White House, he improved every office and organization he touched. Always the student, from day one, no matter what the job, he had done his homework and without exception amazed his new staff on his grasp of the issues of that particular office. This was true from youth to death. He was a century ahead of his time on the environment and on conservation. He was a century ahead of his time on international diplomacy. And in that capacity, he was as capable of incredibly deft and nuanced activity, when needed, as a heavy hand. Consider his handling of the Morroco Incident and the Russo-Japanese War. He had no illusions about the constraints nor restraints imposed on him by the particular geo-political situation. He seldom fought a battle he hadn't carefully analyzed couldn't win except the 1912 election - and even there, he was aiming to be a kick in the pants to both political parties that he saw dominated by politicians who did not have the public interest at heart and in that respect he was largely correct. I think his record of both personal and political "greatness" is clear.SimonATL (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
While I largely agree with you (Morris, I think, likens TR to a locomotive, and that's about right), the article does have some defects of ommission. I think that the positives on TR that you mention are largely borne out by the judgment of historians about his presidency ranking in the top 5. Wiki neutrality only requires that significant minority opinions be represented by a minority of space.

Why do we need TR today? Because we need to read about a man who can give a speech minutes after being shot in the chest by an assassin. And a more innocent world in which he's allowed to do so (before Ghandi, JFK, RFK, MLK, Bhutto…). America seems to have lost something post-9/11, and our average citizens need to take something of the pluck of TR.

But the dark side of TR is that he was childlike in his egoism (which in adults we call egotism), and sometimes he went over the top, as in the spelling reform which the article mentions, but doesn't really underscore the significance of. This is real mania, on the verge of mental illness. People like this can accomplish amazing things (TR being prime example). But they can also be really dangerous, especially when lacking self insight. Brands makes a strong argument that this was a fairly significant flaw which went hand in hand with TR's greatest strength-- the Aristotelian hubris of the romantic hero. Yes, the article mentions ARL's comment that TR wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. And that's funny enough that there's not enough sober consideration given to the idea that it might be more or less true, and to Brands' assertion that TR was more or less incapable of seeing anybody who disagreed with him as other than corrupt, stupid, immoral, or cowardly. Sometimes all at once. And that's not good. If there was ever a human being who didn't WP:AGF, TR was that man. This needs a bit more discussion to give the full treatment of a man who lacked the introspection and self-mockery of (say) a JFK. It's just amazing TR didn't get into more trouble than he did. Consider that our present president with the horrid approval rating has only a fraction of the self-assurance-in-the-face-of-all-evidence, that TR had. But of course TR was saved many a time from disaster by his knowledge, energy, and other kinds of intelligence. Fascinating character. SBHarris 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the many insights into the POV/NPOV claim on this article and to the discussion on the positive as well as negative traits that made up Theodore Roosevelt.
So where do we stand? The VOTE:

POV? No - Why? True, the article contains a great many number of pluses, but they are aptly born out by many written sources. The article also contains discussions of some of TR's negatives, ego, immaturity, impulsiveness, big mouth, occasional lapses of candot - including quotes fro some of his biggest historical critics such as Henry Pringle (19310) which can continue to be expanded upon. SimonATL (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I Vote YES to remove the silly POV tag. Vidor (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I Vote YES (also) to remove the silly POV tag. Criticisms going back to TR's time and also from his most vociferous critics such as Henry Pringle (1932 bio) are also incorporated. Yes, he could be an egomaniac, a jingoist and an imperialist. So what, he's not on Mt. Rushmore for nothing. Yes, he DID advance his own personal interests, but they were almost totally consistent with the USA national interest as well. Critics and supporters agree on most of the positives as well as the negatives. He's NOT quoted by every USA 2008 presidential candidate for nothing! Remove the tag ASAP. And I'll do it myself unless I hear a good case for the POV, which I haven't seen yet. Here' what the critics should do -

  1. 1 Read his 30 plus books include his autobiography. #2 Read virtually every bio on him from Herman Hagedorn thru Constance Milard. #3 Read his speeches. #4 Read his letters to his children. #5 Read the tributes made to him at his death. #5 Read the German, British and Russian Emperor's personal letters on TR. They all thought him the most extraordinary man of his age and the quintisential American. Sorry, would be critics, he WAS an amazing American who forever changed the US presidency, fought his own party for the American people, single-handedly pushed thru the Panama Canal. Won BOTH the (Congressional) Medal of Honor AND the Noble Peace Prize, help found the world's FIRST conservation club, directly helped to found the World's FIRST national park, saving Yellowstone from crass commercialization, wrote the still definitive history of the origins of the US Navy, wrote the still definitive work on US western expansion, started the 1st US forest service, started the 1st US anti-trust litigation, put 10% (250 million acres) of the USA under federal protection, save the last surviving 100 Redwoods from destruction, founded the 1st national monuments in the USA and the first wild game sanctuaries. Worked in 6 languages. I could go on and on. These are ALL factually verifiable. I say NON POV. In fact, I'm going to add even MORE criticisms of him as I find them. But he was one HECK of a guy - an American Lion, if ever there was one! SimonATL (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor garble

The "Assassination attempt" section contains this sentence:

Roosevelt, as a very experienced hunter and anatomist, besides the fact he wasn't coughing blood meant the bullet had not completely penetrated the chest wall to his lung (he was correct), and so declined suggestions he go to the hospital immediately.

Something's a bit garbled here. Does "besides" mean that he had two reasons not to go? -- (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Meant to read "decided", I think. Fixed. SBHarris 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


I recently spent a considerable amount of time fact-tagging roughly 1/4 of this article (intending to finish later), which contains a large amount of unencyclopedic prose.[1] User Vidor later swept in and waved his magic wand, undoing all my hard work.[2] In light of this, I'm here to request the addition of a refimprove box at the top of the page. I'd do it myself, but like so much of Wikipedia, this article is apparently no longer a community project. I'd love to see how long the guardians of this article can tolerate their masterpiece being "defaced" by such an irreverent request for quality control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to think of it as "editing", but "magic wand" does sound more cool. By the way, sticking the word "fact" into an article thousands of times really isn't "hard work". Vidor (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the hard work is deciding WHERE they should go. I have a hard time believing that every single {{fact}} tag added was a bad one (I have no idea who the IP user above, is). So if somebody was being lazy, who was it more likely to be? Just WP:AGF and remove some of the tags you really don't like at all and think are outrageous, and leave the ones that are at least plausable. That will make this more of a community project. That said, remember, please, that in general articles can be assumed to be running factually on the last cite given, unless they switch to making some really outrageous or very quantitative comment. We don't need a cite for every sentence or even every paragraph. If we did, we'd need some "hidden" reference system, like the professional biographies being written today use. SBHarris 23:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the respect, SBHarris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

I've just read the article and I think the lead paragraph could do with a major re-vamping, it looks too long and un-tidy. AndreNatas (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

White supremacist beliefs?

From the article:

  • "Civilised man can only keep the peace by subduing his barbarian neighbour."
  • "Their life was only a few degrees less meaningless, squalid and ferocious than that of wild animals." (Justifying his role in slaughtering Indians in South Dakota.)

That says nothing about white supremacy, at all. --Windsock (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The run-on sentences in the 1884 convention

I decided to rewrite and repair all of the convoluted prepositional phrases in the final paragraph (The 1884 convention). Not only were they confusingly stacked, in unwieldy sentences, but there were unnecessary words that hindered the sentence flow. You can see the earlier versions for this. I think it reads better now.Dfoofnik (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted Teddy Roosevelt Impersonator

Just a brief mention of Mr. Jim Foote who regularly goes around the country (I've seen him in DC and in TR's home town, where I live) "performing" as President Roosevelt. Anyone who is a "fan, admirer and TR enthusiast" would probably agree mentioning Mr. Foote is appropriate or at the very least an interesting tid-bit. Dantali (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Small Typo

Sorry if this is really minuscule, but in the army template thing a ways down in the article detailing TR's command, his rank is listed as "Colonek", which I am assuming should be "Colonel" as the article itself states. This is a minor thing, but I don't have an account ATM, so if anyone agrees, it would be a good idea to change it? Thanks. (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Accurizer (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Only Sitting President

Theodore Roosevelt was the first American to be awarded a Nobel Prize (in any category) in 1906, and he remains the only sitting president to win the Nobel Peace Prize (for his part in ending the Russo-Japanese War). Jimmy Carter won the award as a former president.

What about Woodrow Wilson (1919)?

Also there is no "Nobel Peace Prize" Icon for Mr. Teddy Roosevelt like there is one for Al Gore. any editor who knows how to put one in please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There was one, but it got deleted about a month ago when the image was removed from the Commons. I've put it back. -- Zsero (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanksgiving Day proclamation

This quote from New York World is a journalistic satire, not a real example of spelling reform.

When nerly three centuries ago, the first settlers kam to the kuntry which has bekom this great republik, tha confronted not only hardship and privashun, but terible risk of thar lives. . . . The kustum has now bekum nashnul and hallowed by immemorial usaj..

Page 155 of Robert E. Kling's 1970 The Government Printing Office, has details on this, including the date of publication in the newspaper. Unfortunately, Google Books isn't letting me read the whole page on that.--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Brownsville shooting

This incident may in fact be important enough to Roosevelt's career that it does belong somewhere on this page, but the paragraph that keeps getting added to the "views on race" section seems to have parachuted in there at random. I appreciate that the IP editor is trying to be reasonable, and has trimmed down the unsourced editorialising that it used to contain, but now we need to decide whether it belongs on the page at all, and if so where? It also still needs cleaning up, since the latest version just isn't comprehensible English. But the more important question is where, if anywhere, to put it.

ETA: It is already at Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, where it occupies one sentence. It certainly shouldn't take up more space in the main article than it does in the sub-article. -- Zsero (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it’s important enough to be somewhere on the page. Since it is referred in one sentence however, I feel as though it’s enough. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


He appears to have been given the same pronunciation as FDR. TR was rose velt whereas FDR was roo se velt 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I added "Citation needed" to the article's questionable claim about pronunciation. My understanding is that Roo se velt is correct for Teddy, but ROSE se velt is correct for FDR, but I don't have a reference. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln Penny Image

Can we find a better picture of the Lincoln Penny? By 1968, the image of Lincoln had strayed from VDB's work, and had much bolder features. In 1969, the mint decided to return to VDB's original design, which was more subtle, but since that time, the work has strayed again. An image of a 1969 penny or a 1909 penny would be a better tribute to VDB's work. --MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

Under the "firsts" section, this award should be cited as "the Medal of Honor", not "a Medal of Honor".

Additionally the MOH image should be included and placed at the top of his image as well. I had placed it next to the Noble Peace Price and someone unjustly removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Big Stick Quote

I heard a version of the "Big Stick" quote once that went

Speak softly and carry a big stick, and all the world will listen.

Is this someone embellishing or is this part of the original quote? Obviously with out confirmation and citation it can't go in the article but I thought it relevant if minor. Dachande (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Medal of Honor & Noble Peace Prize icons need to be added

The Noble icon was it's been deleted for some erroneous reason.

T.R. deserves having BOTH the MOH & NPP icons near his image due to their tremendous significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Five-story house or Four-story house?

I'm reading David McCullough's "Mornings on Horseback" right now and on pg. 19, it states the building is a five-story, and so I changed it accordingly. However, the official brochure I downloaded by a .pdf file says "A fourth story was also added to the original three-story brownstone." However, it doesn't say anything about further renovations. Therefore it implies that it is a four-story. Which is right? Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 13:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Secretary of the Navy

When did Roosevelt leave the office of Assistant Secretary of the Navy? The infobox is wrong, and the information is not in the article. Sectori (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is somewhere a great photo of Teddy as a boy leaning out a New York apt bulding window watching a parade of some important person. I don't remember where I saw it, but if anyone does, it would be a great addtion to this article. If I remember correctly it is only a coincidence that Teddy was in the picture.Trucker11 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the picture in David McCullough's Mornings on Horseback on apge 129, at the bottom. The picture is from the Theodore Roosevelt collection, Harvard. Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 10:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've checked just now but the photos are unavailable on the 'net as of yet. However, if it can be of any interest to the English Wikipedia, the web pages you should visit are here and here. Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 10:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

TR's fraternity at Harvard

I was always told that TR was a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity while at Harvard, I noticed today that the TR wikipedia page lists his fratewrnity as Alpha Delta Phi. Both fraternities seem to claim his membership. What's the correct answer?Jlbelford4 (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

teddy bear origin story

The citation for the story that the Teddy bear is so named because Roosevelt refused to kill it actually contradicts that claim in the article; this link says Roosevelt order a bear's mercy killing. I don't know if I ought to edit the article or the link, as I'm not sure which is true. Seijihyouronka (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why no edit??

Why no edit?? I was going to put some information that Teddy was the youngest president in the history of the United States, but I can't edit the aricle to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madirox22 (talkcontribs) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected until 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC) due to vandalism. Unregistered users and registered users who are not yet autoconfirmed cannot edit the page. - auburnpilot talk 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph already says he was "the youngest person to become President" and it's mentioned again in the "Presidency 1901-1909" section. There's also a footnote that explains that JFK was the youngest person elected President - Horo (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


What is the reason for including the "Moh" image and link to the left of Roosevelt's name in the infobox? There is no source citation to justify this inclusion, and it thus seems inappropriate. I propose deletion of this medal-like image and link. Comments? —Adavidb 11:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked Archive2 and realized the link is what needed to be corrected (to "Medal of Honor"), which I've done. —Adavidb 12:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sportsmanship - Factual accuracy doubted

This account clearly comes from Owen Wister. The story where C.S. Hanks and TR fought, Hanks punched TR when the referee called time at the end of a round. However, not only did the article Wister wrote appear twenty years after the incident, another eyewitness, George Spalding, called Wister's account "the most barefaced egregious manufactured history ever conceived." Additionally, while the NY Times and the Harvard Advocate published comments and accounts of the boxing match, none of them mention any high sportsmanship, nor does TR himself in his diary. Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 11:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So, if there's no objections, I'll delete it. Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 06:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Writings, speeches

TR was a prolific writer and incredibly effective public speaker - but there is nothing in the article to suggest that or to provide a good link to this info. Aren't there any TR specialists out there that could make this contribution to the article?Vontrotta (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Would anyone mind if I were to add a bit about the resolution of the Venezuela crisis, which essentially precipitated the Roosevelt Corrollary to the Monroe Doctrine. It is really a marvelous bit of diplomacy. There are features of TR's foreign policy that demonstrate a mastery of "speak softly" as opposed to the dominant view of his "big stick" attitude.

Quigonpaj (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Health care

The beginning of the article makes claims about Roosevelt and universal health care, but I do not see where this is discussed in the article proper. Am I missing something? (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Republican party rift

The following sentence occurs in the first paragraph of the Republican Party Rift section: "When Roosevelt realized that lowering the tariff would risk severe tensions inside the Republican Party—pitting producers (manufacturers and farmers) against merchants and consumers—he stopped talking about the issue."

This sentence starts a discussion about some tariff, without having mentioned anywhere in that section what tariff they are referring to. It looks as if somehow in the editing process, there was a disconnect introduced between the section up to this sentence, and the remainder of this section. I don't know enough about the subject to fix it, but as a reader I found it confusing. --MisterSquirrel 01:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in the Margin

darth vader is in star wars charlie sheen

Added better quality photos and other pages on parents, sister and daughter

I think its important to show photos that emphasize TR's vigorous and bellicose nature because they went into the making who he was. Also added photos to TR's first wife, Alice and his first daughter, Alice. Added pages with photos of both Roosevel's mother, Martha (Mittie) Bulloch Roosevelt and his father Theodore, Sr. Please continue to edit for clarity and content. Thanks SimonATL 8:10, 20 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote not actually found in referenced article

this quote: "Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose."[72] is supposedly from the [72] reference page, but it is actually not to be found there.-- (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article may be too long?

I saw the too long tag on the article and did some measurements. I used Firebug_(Firefox_extension) to get total size and download time for a fast broadband connection (so time depends on wikimedia server bandwidth).

The actual HTML part of each article (not including the images, javascript and CSS) is around 90 Kilobytes, so most of the contribution to the slow loading of these articles is not due to the text. It is due to images, references, and the navigation templates at the bottom.

I also used wikipedia's Page Size gadget to get the prose size:

  • Theodore Roosevelt 61 kB (10114 words)
  • George H. W. Bush 41 kB (6768 words)
  • Bill Clinton 49 kB (7869 words)

That's as far as I got before wikimedia servers reported problems. Even though the figures might look not so good for Theodore Roosevelt's article, I don't think it should be split for readability reasons alone (i.e. I did not find it arduous to read). If the too long tag is intended to alert editors that it's taking too long to load (and must be impossible for a dial-up user), I would agree, but most Featured Articles have this problem and the solution lies not in cutting the text but in severely pruning the templates (and maybe reduce the actual byte-size of the image thumnbnails). Maybe split the navigation templates to a subpage? I hope this helps. -84user (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly disagree. This page is too small. Please add more information peoples. Thank you. (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree as well, I wouldn't say it's too small, but its a good amount of length, and it is indepth without being boring, lets keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First book published - The Naval War of 1812

The first book published section is written in terribly poor English from the very first sentence ("While at Harvard, the [sic] Roosevelt began a systematic study..."). I would fix it, but I can't edit the page, and the quality of the language frankly leads me to doubt the quality of the content contained therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Presidency 1901 - 1909

This article indicates that TR did not use a Bible for his inauguration and is footnoted as #46.

At this US Senate site it says that he used the same Bible he took his oath of office as NY Governor in 1898, and that it was opened to James 1:22-23.

It's an official Senate history site, so shouldn't that be taken as a primary source?

Ktho64152 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he used a bible for his second inauguration, but I don't think he used a bible for his first one because it was an emergency inauguration after the assassination of President William McKinley.Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Tolstoy Link

In the "Life in the Badlands" section, it is mentioned that Roosevelt read Tolstoy to keep himself awake while guarding three outlaws. The link attached to the name Tolstoy leads to an article on the Tolstoy family of Russia. I believe this is a mistake. Shouldn't the link lead to the article about Leo Tolstoy? Can someone please change this? I do not know how to. (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Race Section

I'm slightly concerned that the section regarding TR's views on race paints a skewed picture of the guy. He's almost portrayed as a nasty, bigoted racist, when he was actually quite progressive for his time. Much of his views that seem despicable now are better understood within the context of his views of evolution, believing that the "negro race" (sorry if that comes off as being offensive) was simply behind the white race, and needed to promote and encourage its most successful members to "catch up." He spoke very often of treating each person on their merits, regardless of color, and was outspoken in his support for Japanese immigrants against discrimination. I've written something I'd like to add to the section, but I fear it might focus too much of the overall article on the issue of race. I also think the "Views on Race" section should be moved farther down the article underneath the "Character and Beliefs section." Any thoughts on that?

Anyway, here is what I wanted to add as a point of clarification to the race section. Is it too long?

Much of Roosevelt’s views on race, many of which are unacceptable in today’s society, should be taken in the context of the time. His attitudes were rooted in the emerging zeitgeist of evolutionary thought of the period. Influenced by Darwin, Lamarck, and Le Bon, Roosevelt felt that the black race was collectively inferior to whites, but that those blacks who distinguished themselves should be afforded every right and privilege of their white counterparts. He felt that the equality for the black race would come through progress from one generation to the next. [Morris, Theodore Rex, 2001, 52-54] While, in today’s world, such an attitude might be considered abominable, he was lauded by liberal whites, and was received as the usher of a new era in the black community[Theodore Rex, 54]. William McGill, a black preacher in Tennessee, wrote that “The Administration of President Roosevelt is to the Negro what the heart is to the body. It has pumped life blood into every artery of the Negro in this country.”[ Theodore Rex, 2001, 200]. Even Pope Leo XIII remarked approvingly of TR’s determination “to seek equality of treatment of all the races.” [Robinson, My Brother, 47, 2/15/1903]
He wrote to a friend that, regarding the difficult issue of race relations, “the only wise and honorable and Christian thing to do is to treat each black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man.”[ TR to Albion W. Tourgee, 11/08/1901, Letters, vol. 3, 190-191] Additionally, Roosevelt risked outrage (and perhaps physical harm) while speaking to a heavily-armed crowd in Butte, Montana during his 1903 Western tour: “I fought beside colored troops at Santiago, and I hold that if a man is good enough to be put up and shot at then he is good enough for me to do what I can to get him a square deal.”[ Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris, 2001, 233]
Perhaps his attitude is best understood in comparison to those of others in his time, who accused him of “mingling and mongrelization” of the white race, and notably of Benjamin Tillman, Senator of South Carolina, who commented on Roosevelt dining with Booker T. Washington as such: “The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that [n-word] will necessitate our killing a thousand [n-words] in the South before they learn their place again.” [Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris, 2001, 55] He was also mocked in a Washington Post cartoon of his famous “teddy bear” hunt, showing him turning in disgust while a white hunter drags a very black bear by a rope around the neck.[ Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris, 2001, 173]
Other examples of Roosevelt’s opposition to racism including proceeding with the court-martial and dismissal of General Jake Smith, who publicly advocated racial genocide in the Phillipines.[ Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris, 2001, 127] He also spoke out against those whites who exacerbated the racist “Yellow Peril,” remarking passionately about the positive qualities of the Japanese to Congress, and referring to Japan as “one of the greatest of civilized nations.”[ Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris, 2001, 483]
The section on race is not balanced and the information above needs to be added to it. TR was a product of his times, but he was far more progressive on race than most people of his time. That needs to be brought out in the article. His racially-tinged statements need to be put within the context of the times. SimonATL (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I second the motion. I just added the above information to the article. It is not encyclopedic to hide every positive race thing TR did just because TR was wrong for today's wiser standards Arosa (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the section, but I think using "[n-word]" when the original quote uses the actual word is not okay. WP:CENSOR. IronDuke 22:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm a European browsing random Wikipedia articles. To me the text about evolutionary zeitgeist added after Roosevelt's views on war against "savages" seems to be an expression of the writer's belief in the goodness of Roosevelt rather than a truthful clarification. The main thing that should be understood is that Darwin did not encourage war against indigenous people as Roosevelt did. He simply predicted it. In fact, in his normative statements, Darwin was consistently against slavery, oppression, and maltreatment of all kind. Here are a couple of quotes from Darwin's writings to give you an idea of what I mean:
"Every one here is fully convinced that this is the most just war, because it is against barbarians. Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?" (Darwin on the war against indians in South America, "Voyage of the Beagle", 1839, chapter V)
"N. America does not do England Justice: I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, & I am one, even and wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery." (Darwin writing to Asa Gray about the civil war in US (June 5, 1861) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 9 1861)
In case you are interested in this subject, google "Darwin on race and slavery" for more quotes. The hateful attitude against ethnic minorities in the United States is heritage of slavery and has nothing to do with the writings of Darwin, Lamarck or Le Bon. Teerui (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have now removed the connection to Darwin, Lamarck and Le Bon.

It is a bit long, and should be trimmed, but I do think that there needs to be a more balanced inclusion of quotes and anecdotes than what are currently in the article. Or, perhaps it should link to another article "Roosevelt's Views on Race"? Quigonpaj (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the table at the bottom -- TR became President in 1901, as it says at the top !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that the maniac-"You're-A-Racist!" crowd is a large one so I'm not going to bother to amend this article just to see it reversed three seconds later but I'd be remiss if I didn't note for posterity the utterly ridiculous fact that in a relatively tiny article about one of the most extraordinary public figures in all of American history there's a prominent section well high up in the article entitled "Views on Race".

Don't get me wrong. As a reality-biased individual I'm not interested in seeing these quotes vanish down a memory hole. They just aren't remotely important enough to be included (and so prominently!) in an article of this length.

As a disclaimer I should note that I personally believe it altogether possible that the average Japanese has inherently greater mathematical ability (environmental factors being equal) than the average Pygmy. I see no reason for us to assume that cranial evolution decided to cease when all other forms of evolution continued apace - particularly when faced with overwhelming evidence to the effect that it HAS continued to a worthy-of-mention degree. BUT - even if history DOES bear me out (in a mixed-race future perhaps where everyone will be descended from the same ancestral mongrelized stock) and the (seeming) fact of human differences is yawningly accepted and undisputed, I would protest some future wikipedia taking too great a note of the many extraordinary folk of our day who happen to have been on "the wrong side" of this (or any particular) issue. In general, what I'm protesting is the view of many annoying self-righteous activists who believe that any and every issue must first and foremost be looked at through some particular lense or another. By the moral standards of any particular time or place Theodore Roosevelt's life and personality undoubtedly include both laudable and condemnable details but to choose any particular one to thrust up so highly in a tiny piece about this fascinating giant of a man is to assault truth to an unforgivable degree. - m —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


Looking through this article, I am exteremely surprised to find almost no criticism of Teddy, except for the 'Views on race' section, which someone even tried to get deleted or washed down as per above. There has to be some criticism he received somewhere, which should be brough to light. I do agree he was a great man, but the article seems to be severly lacking in balance. (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points, but I've tried to expand the articl to include criticism of his actions including some of his clearly disingenuous statements to the press following the 1885 Republican Convention, pointed out by Henry Pringle, TR's severest critic. I will also, soon be adding the criticisms pointed out by John Morton Blum in his short but excellent work, "The Republican Roosevelt." SimonATL (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It says he was in favor of universal health care--that's a pretty big criticism.-- (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt´s travel to Brazil

In 1901 or 1904, Roosevelt joined an expetition led by Candido Mariano Rondon to the countryside of Brazil in which they discovered a river. Based on this trip he wrote ´Through Brazilian Wilderness`. In an issue of ´The New York Times´ released in 1991 or 1992, it is said that Roosevelt had contracted a tropical disease while in Brazil.

This is the first time I´m editing. I hope this information will be useful

Unsigned comment by at 23:22 on 22/01/2009.

Thanks but we already have this noted in the article under '1913–1914 South American Expedition'. AllanHainey (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


There is nothing in the article about his death. I did the math and he was only 61 at the time of his passing. Did the bullet wound in his chest have anything to do with it? How, where, and with whom did he pass away? Dank-you-berry-mooch —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a Later years and death section. —ADavidB 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
TR had long ago, in Harvard diagnosed with a congenital heart ailment. He had taken Nitroglycerin tablets (Nitris Oxyide which keeps the arteries more subtle probably prevented massive heart attacks)

What greatly weakend TR was really his trip down to the Amazon Rain forest in 1913. There, he probably caught or RE-caught Malaria, dysenterry, and several other tropical diseases that greatly weakened his immune system. He also cut himself on his foot which led to a terrible infection that, even before he got out of the jungle, nearly killed him. If not for the care of a physician and his son, Kermit who were on the trip, he never would have survived. He was also nearly blind in one eye and nearly deaf in one ear. He had terrible attacks of angina indicating partially blocked arteries, blood vessles that brought to him to his knees in pain in the jungle. When his party arrived at the end of the trip, he had to be carried off his dugout on a stretcher. He had lost over 40 pounds. When he returned to NYC, he wrote a friend that that trip had probably shortened his life by 10 years. Actually it shortened his life more than that. He was in and out of hospitals until he died in Jan 1919. In fact, he had been hospitalized in all of Dec of 1918 almost dying right there. He SURELY lived up to one of his most famous mottos - "Better to burn out than rust out!" SimonATL (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC) See the section on the Amazon trip which I added to the article several years ago. At a Theodore Roosevelt Association symposium in 2006, in Atlanta, GA, I met the author of an excellent book on that adventure/tragedy and she talked about the experience that nearly killed him. Had he NOT taken that 1913 trip, he surely would have been re-elected US president in 1920. In fact, he was making plans for that campaign in January 1919 when he died. SimonATL (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

split article(s)

This article is way too long, some of the Presidency should go in the main article. I would also suggest an early life of Theodore Roosevelt, Early professional life of Theodore Roosevelt, and a Post-presidential life of Theodore Roosevelt.--Levineps (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not proper to have two articles on TR's presidency, as is presently the case with Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt's Presidency. The first article's name seems to be the standard, and the second should be merged with it. —ADavidB 13:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Middle Name

For some reason, this site lists TR's middle initial as "D." Why? What is his middle name? I keep finding that he had no middle name. This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The initial is provided based on a reference to its being "D" (though no expansion provided) within a book published in 1916. The Navy Department Library's list of Assistant Secretaries of the Navy also includes a "D" as Theodore Roosevelt's middle initial. I've found some web sites that list Theodore Roosevelt among presidents who had no middle name, though I'm not sure of their reliability. —ADavidB 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I now understand the middle initial reference in the Navy list is for the president's namesake son Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., so the issue remains clouded. —ADavidB 07:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe he did not have a middle name, as the National Park Service claims (admittedly, on a rather unprofessional page here [3].) Also the arguement (here) makes sense, that historians love using middle names -- why would the only reference to his middle name be on One page in One book? It is more likely a typo. Surely there is information such as his birth certificate, or from the New York Governors Office that would settle this? - AJ Halliwell (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Records when Roosevelt was born were not nearly as well kept as they are today, so it is entirely possible that there is no birth certificate, or, if there is one, that it has been lost. If his son was a "jr.", then they would have to have the same full name, so it doesn't really make sense that he would have no middle name but his son would. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Columbia Law School alumni

TR is an alumnus of Columbia Law School, a fact not mentioned in the "Categories Section" at the bottom of the page. TR's mention as an alumnus of Columbia University does not compensate for the absence of the former. See "Categories Section" for FDR (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Middle initial?

There has been some disagreement on whether Theodore Roosevelt had a middle name/initial. This book (copyright 1916) is the source for the current D. initial. I searched to see if I could find corroboration for this information.

  1. The official White House biography makes no mention of a middle name/initial. (not definitive one way or other)
  2. The Theodore Roosevelt Association biography also makes no mention of a middle name/initial. (not definitive one way or other)
  3. The Nobel Foundation biography also makes no mention of a middle name/initial. (not definitive one way or other)
  4. A National Park Service fact page says he did not have a middle name.
  5. What I think is the most definitive answer though is this 13 August 1899 New York Times article. This NY Times article says that Theodore Roosevelt did not have a middle name until he was talked about as a candidate for Governor of NY. A newspaper added a "B." to his name.

I think the middle initial should be removed from the lede. Some information should be added in the early political career section that explains how he acquired a middle initial. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I (User:Bcorr) was the one who added in the middle initial, and in addition to the 1916 reference, his son Theodore Roosevelt Jr. more conclusively had the middle initial "D:, as is demonstrated by the fact the the U.S. Department of the Navy lists him as "Theodore D. Roosevelt, Jr." in a list of Assistant Secretaries of the Navy at
I have copied here a discussion from my talk page about the topic, and I do think the middle initial ought to be included with the citation as I did in my last edit. However, here is some grist for the mill:
== [[Theodore Roosevelt]] ==
Hi, I noticed this edit to the article (removed (widely reprinted) "D." vandalism - Theodore Roosevelt didn't have a middle name). Since I noticed that you are the one who added the initial, I thought you might want to have a look. -- Luk talk 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Luk -- I appreciate the note. I even referenced it -- here is the source:, which is from the "Origin and History of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America", published during his lifetime in 1916, and where his name with the middle initial is found on page 162. In my original edit, I included the citation as:

{{cite web |url= |title=Origin and History of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America |accessdate=2009-03-20 |last=Sanford |first=Elias Benjamin |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1916 |format= |publisher=S.S. Scranton Company|page=162}}

I'll go back there and leave a note for the editor in question.
BCorr|Брайен 00:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
BCorr, I'm quite certain that's a typo in your reference. There aren't any other relevant scholarly references to a "Theodore D. Roosevelt" in the Google books return your cite's from, and this New York Times article from 1899 indicates Roosevelt didn't have a middle name, as does this National Park Service page for Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Indeed, as the NYT article points out, giving him a middle name was a common error, and there are also a number of references that would support calling him "Theodore B. Roosevelt", "Theodore R. Roosevelt", or even "Theodore J. Roosevelt".
Frimairist (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a typo. I found it after discovering that his son Theodore Roosevelt Jr. more conclusively had the middle initial "D". This is demonstrated by the fact the the U.S. Department of the Navy lists him as "Theodore D. Roosevelt, Jr." in a list of Assistant Secretaries of the Navy at While the NPS page is somewhat compelling, I wouldn't say it is enough to contradict the other sources, and the New York Times article is written in a rather humorous tone and makes a point about how the print media are often inaccurate, and I don't think it really is proof that TR didn't have a middle name.
BCorr|Брайен 02:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 02:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: I did a more specific Google book search -- with over forty results. This reference from a 1895 publication relating the events of the year is, I think, rather definitive and completely undermines the 1899 New York Times article:
The Chautauquan, p. 484; Published by M. Bailey, Publisher, 1895 (note carefully that the caption "President Roosevelt" underneath the iconic engraving refers to his being president of the New York City Board of Police Commissioners, not of the U.S.) In this, he is clearly identified as "Theodore D. Roosevelt," and there is not a reasonable doubt about its accuracy.

BCorr|Брайен 17:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on your research it looks like "D" is the correct and it should be listed in the lede as his middle initial. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Small question

There is no mention of Roosvelt's eccentric coffee drinking why is that? I was watching the History channel and it was mentioned, I went and looked on Wikipedia to clarify and it is not here! I found it on some other websites though. Apparently, he drank up to 1 gallon of coffee a day, I think that is worth noting. I have never edited a wiki entry, and would rather not mess anything up that everyone worked so hard on and I'm not even sure if most of you would consider adding this. Anyways, I will leave it up to the main contributors of this article whether to add this small detail or not. Thanks!

Answer: You're absolutely right on the coffee. In the "TR Rex" bio, Morris mentions TR's breakfasts "laced as usual by vast infusions of caffeine, served only to stoke Roosevelt's energy." pg 17-18. Interesting point. Let's add it under interesting facts. SimonATL 1:10, 23 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: The quote used by Maxwell House Coffee, "Good To The Last Drop", is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, who, having stopped in to a roadside home and been given a cup of coffee, made this remark as a compliment to the hostess and the coffee she had brewed.

Actually, that house was near the ancestral home of US president Andrew Jackson in Tenessee.

References: History Channel's "The Presidents" (1825-1849) [4]

[5] [6]

He drank two gallons of coffee!4DJONG (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

TR was member of Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity at Harvard

Theodore was a member of Alpha Delta Phi NOT Delta Kappa Epsilon as indicated in article. This needs to be corrected. This can be checked in catalogs of the Alpha Delta Phi. Pneshamkin (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

It says as of 2008 TR was the only President to recieve this award. To my knowledge he still is.(edit) This should be updated to show this.Frogo Baggins (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It now reads "thus far". It would be impractical to update this sentence with each passing year another president does not received the medal. —ADavidB 12:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes it would I was expectin "to date" but that is just fine. Thank you for changing it. Frogo Baggins (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Youngest President in office

Do we count him as the youngest president that was not elected until his re-election? Seance President Kennedy was the youngest man to ever be elected to the office of president of the united states.Or do we just say he was the youngest one to hold the office without being elected first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Try actually reading the article and see what it says. SBHarris 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have read it but im still wondering where do we rank him on the youngest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt

This article was too long, and is tagged as such. So I split off the political positions section into a new article, and summarized it here. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't have a huge problem with it or anything, as this isn't an article I frequently edit, but you should probably discuss changes this big before making them. UnitAnode 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not like I deleted 8K...more like I moved 15K of the article to someplace else. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It's a large change, and per WP:BRD, please wait for discussion here to develop before restoring the change. I have no opinion for or against the change, but it's a big change, and needs discussion before restoring it. UnitAnode 18:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I would note that when editing this article, a message "this article is 128KB. It may be appropriate to split it" appears. Childhood of Theodore Roosevelt could also get its own article. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So the discussion is...are you, meaning the Roosevelt editors, OK with just a summary of the political positions so long as the block quotes and the rest of the section are in Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt? I am...and if people agree with me, I'll put it back to the way I had it. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • As someone who watches the article simply to protect it from vandalism, I would support the change, with the caveat that the section in the main article have more than 3-4 sentences. I also support creation of a Childhood article, as you mentioned above. Let's give it 24-48 hours or so before making the change, though, as some of the more frequent editors of this article might not log in before a day or two passes. UnitAnode 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The 24-48 hours have come and gone, so Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt is here to stay. I might try the childhood article at a later date Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Recognizing Theodore Roosevelt's legacy in North Dakota

There is no mention in the article of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the Elkhorn Ranch unit in particular and the recent acquistion, supported by over 50 conservation groups, of additional lands by the US Forest Service to help preserve the "cradle of conservation". The US Forest Service is currently going through a planning process on how these lands should be managed for future generations. In addition, the National Park Service and the US Forest Service are nominating these lands (headquarters, federal lands, and one - agreeable - private landowner) as a National Historic District. I am certain more information on these efforts can be found out and incorporated into the site by contacting either agency. Sschwenke (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff that isn't mentioned, and can't be because the article is too long already. May I suggest mentioning it in a different article, and linking it? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle initial...revisited

I just restored the middle initial and reference in accordance with the extensive discussion and agreement at Talk:Theodore_Roosevelt/archive2#Middle_initial.3F. I only note it here so that we don't have to go through this all over again.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I undid your edit because when you did that, you also reverted the edits regarding the going and coming back of the "very-long" tag and the moving of Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt to its own article. You can put back the D., so long as you do it from the current revision. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I put back the D, since you think it's OK (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


What does "D" stand for? (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasonable possibilities from his mother's family (to which he was very attached), but both are completely speculative as no citations exist that I have seen: his maternal grandmother's grandmother was Mary DeVeaux; his mother's maternal grandfather was Daniel Stewart (and his grandfather in turn was also Daniel Stewart). There are also many other family names that could qualify. See for more. It would be interesting to see some good research into this.
BCorr|Брайен 22:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead

I find many issues that need addressing with the lead of this article. It was brought to my attention by an editor who feels that it is simply too long. Well, it is long, but this is one of the most remarkable men to have lived in the history of America, and it's certainly going to have a longer lead than the average article. In fact, when I first tried rewriting it, instead of trimming its size, I actually ended up with a version that was about 30% longer!

But reading it, I felt that the lead had a more significant problem: It fails the requirement of WP:LEAD that it act as a summary of the article. Some things were left out of the lead, but more strangely, sometimes the treatment in the lead was the biggest treatment a subject received! Anyway, I'm redoing it to be more in compliance with the requirements of the guideline. It certainly won't be perfect. And I'll probably leave out some things that some people think must be in the lead. (I definitely had to leave out stuff that I would have preferred to include.) Anyway, we can always talk about it. Unschool 03:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article period is too long. We need more subartlicles. I'm thinking Early life of Theodore Roosevelt should be our next article Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You may be correct. Until then, the article exists as it does right now, and at least the lead section is closer to WP:LEAD standards. Unschool 03:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any objections if I try to clean up the lead? It is waaaay too long, and full of unneccesary details. Feel free to take this scrub to task if I'm in the wrong here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted the above comment... I fully expect another paragraph or two to pop up very shortly, but I've tried my best to 'cut the fat' from the lead. It's probably too brief, but there's so much information to cover concerning TR - my point is that the lead can't and shouldn't be 1000 words long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, yes, I do object. I already trimmed this lead down, and I left it at a size consistent with the policies at WP:LEAD. Even the most vocal proponent at WP:LEAD for cutting down Lead Sections, User:TonyTheTiger, who hates leads that are too long, acknowledged that, for this man, the lead as I left it was an appropriate length. This man led an extremely complex and full life, and it is only natural that his lead would be somewhat longer than average.
And what are you talking about, "the lead can't and shouldn't be 1000 words long"? Look at it. My counter says I left it at 555 words long, and now you have it trimmed to 127 words.
It appears to me that you do not yet understand the guideline WP:LEAD. So here's the path I would like to take.
  1. I am going to revert it back to the previous version, at its previous length.
  2. I am suggesting that you study WP:LEAD
  3. If you still feel your lead is better, then maybe go on the talk page there and ask other people who have significant experience with the guideline to compare your version and mine.
  4. After that, if you still want to cut this back, come back to this talk page. Together, you and I and everyone else who is interested in creating a good lead within the guidelines can agree to principles, and then work it out together. You will find that I have no desire to impose my wishes, that I only want us to work together to achieve consensus within the guidelines.
Is that fair? Unschool 02:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The shorter lead is much, MUCH better. The lead as you want it is far too long. It is too detailed for a lead. (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you feel that way, get a discussion started on it, include your proposal, and see if you can get consensus. But this falls within the guidelines currently, whereas this version fails to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD to encapsulate the key points of the article as a whole. Good luck. Unschool 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil Service Commission - Blockquote Broken

Viewing the "Civil Service Commission" section under "Reentering Public Life" the second paragraph is clearly a supposed to be a blockquote. I went to edit the code and it appear that the blockquote tags are in place an properly formatted. I am not seeing that paragraph display properly. I am running Mozilla Firefox 3.5.3. I also viewed the section in IE 8 and it is similarly broken. (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism; proposed page lock

I recently undid an edit where this article had the info box codex all messed up and not being pictured on the page. Quite embarrassing to see a former President's wikipedia page not properly protected from vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Most pages on Wikipedia are not protected, including those of former Presidents. Vandalism is an unfortunate part of Wikipedia that all article have to deal with on occasion, but pages generally are not protected unless their is excessive, persistent vandalism, a problem which this article does not currently have. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

100 KB tag/splits

Needs more summary style and daughter articles. My main suggestions are Childhood of Theodore Roosevelt and Post-Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Roosevelt's Views and Political Positions of Theodore Roosevelt

Somewhere along the line, somebody changed the section entitled "Political Positions" to "Roosevelt's Views", buried the link to Political positions of Theodore Roosevelt, and added two long sections that belong there, not here. I renamed it back to "Political Positions", made the link prominent, and pasted the sections there. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the changes you made. —ADavidB 04:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I found the 'Political Positions' page to have too many duplicate sections to the main section. The only difference between the 'Political Positions' on the main page and this one was that all the speeches had been removed and an entire section on his view on 'race' had be removed as well. For the sake of cohesiveness and because it really doesn't add that much to the section, I put the speeches back in the main page. Looking at the 'Political Positions' page now is irrelevant. I think this link should be removed. -- Demosfoni (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm reverting that edit on the grounds that a) block quotes really don't belong anywhere, and b) the article was too long, which is why I broke off the political positions page in the first place. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

The main article on Theodore Roosevelt, 26th U.S. present, contains these two sentences.

"He was effectively running the US Department of the Navy when the Spanish American War broke out; he resigned and led a small regiment in Cuba known as the Rough Riders, earning himself the Medal of Honor."

"Colonel Roosevelt and the Rough Riders after capturing San Juan HillFor his actions, Roosevelt was nominated for the Medal of Honor which was subsequently disapproved."

I could not access the article to correct it.

Arnold Bendixen (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Arnold Bendixen

I saw the passages that are in the article. I will examine the source to see which is correct. Way To Go. Nice catch.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I Recieved A Message About Vandalizing This Page

I just wanted to ask what was it that was spammed? I don't believe I have ever made any contributions to this article and I apparently have recieved 3 warnings since June of 2006. I have barely started editing articles on Wikipedia around September. Is this an error, I really don't want to get banned or anything especially when it is not my fault. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clow987 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 12 November 2006.

I have had that happen to me before too. I really don't like it. It shows that Wikipedia is faulty.-- (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're not registered, it shows you're using the same IP address as someone else who vandalized Wikipedia. If you don't like that, you're free to register an account and use it. —ADavidB 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New ideas/work about roots of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor

A new history of what the author James Bradley calls "the imperial cruise" -- his previous books include Flags of our fathers; Bradley's father was one of the famous Iwo Jima flag-raisers profiled in that book/movie -- posits that Pres. T. Roosevelt's secret dealings with and leanings toward the Japanese, during the negotiations over the end of the Russo-Japanese war, sowed seeds of the attack, nearly 40 years later, on Pearl Harbor. The eponymous cruise covered in Bradley's new book was a high-profile Pacific cruise sponsored more or less by TR (his daughter Alice and his Secretary of War were amongst those aboard the Manchuria) in 1905 and foreshadowed the Great White Fleet cruise of 1907-9, which TR ordered (per Wiki).

The following bit I added to the introduction of the TR article, at the point of the Russo-Japanese/Nobel Peace Prize note, citing an op-ed Bradley wrote in the NY Times at the time of the recent Pearl Harbor anniversary.

His [TR's] Asian diplomacy has come under new scrutiny in 2009, being labeled "diplomacy that will live in infamy" as a way to link it to the later 1941 Japanese Pearl Harbor attack. ref name="NYT01" "Diplomacy that will live in Infamy", Op-Ed by James Bradley, The New York Times, December 5, 2009 (p. WK11 of NY ed. Dec. 6, 2009). Retrieved 2009-12-07. /ref

The bit was removed as "nonscholarly pop history" and the editor suggested I introduce it here on the talk page "first." So doing, now.

I recognize that Bradley's new look at TR and the roots of WW2-Pacific is not from the academy, not a scholarly study. However, my reading of Bradley's piece, a couple of reviews of his books (one here), and an excerpt from the book, led me to feel the work he's done and the information he's uncovered has some credibility, brings some new insight, and is worthy of attention. I don't expect his work to single-handedly turn opinion on the President's actions, and the effects of those actions. It may even be proven not credible. But I also don't think my entry, above, undermined the quality of the TR article; I think it opened the subject for readers to consider on its merits, and to build upon or rebut.

When removing my bit, the same editor did improve the exisitng article with a citation from a standard history for the section. I would propose, however, also adding my bit back in following that footnote, since my bit introduces a new viewpoint.

I see there's a "popular culture" section of the TR article. It seems wrong to relegate Bradley's work to such a corner, but ....

Any thoughts? Swliv (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a dubious claim at best. See the article Correlation does not imply causation. It would be like saying the United States expedition to Korea led to later involvement in the Korean War simply because they both involved Korea. Andy120290 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The two reviews I've seen on Bradley are highly negative. I looked at his book and he's not familiar with the scholarship--one hardly expects that of a pop historian who has never published in the time period or on any topic of diplomatic history. (He's best known for his very well written book about his grandfather, who was one of the flag raisers at Iwo Jima). Bradley does not clearly pass the reliable source rule, so I suggest we stick with the scores of solid scholars who have spent years on TR-related topics and whose books have been favorable evaluated. Rjensen (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with editor, Rjensen. Knowledgeable scholars have all but laughed at Bradley's claims. It's that old logical fallacy that the Romans called "post hoc ergo propter hoc" meaning (because Event 2 happened chronologically "after this (Event 1) therefore (it happened) because of Event 1" thanks. SimonATL (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

TR's Defective Moral Character

I think there needs to be a greater discussion of Roosevelt's defective moral character and the deleterious effect that it had on the United States. He abandoned his infant daughter while he went out West to find himself. He left his government position to fight in the Spanish-American War. In 1909-1913, unable to fathom the idea that William Howard Taft might disagree with him, he set about to destroy him, and did so, during the 1912 election, by splitting the Republican Party. This enabled the racist adulterer, Woodrow Wilson, to become President, even though Wilson received only a minority of the popular vote. Wilson then went on to bring us the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and unnecessary involvement in the First World War. Wilson also dismantled the protective tariff, allowed the country to be flooded with cheap imports, and effectively destroyed the manufacturing base of the United States. All of this made possible by Theodore Roosevelt's petulant temper tantrum in 1912 when he could not get his way at the Republican Convention. Finally, Theodore Roosevelt seems to have been incapable of intelligent comment on anything. Everything was "bully, bully" for him. As Mark Hanna lamented when President McKinley was killed, "that damn cowboy [Theodore Roosevelt] is President now," or words to that effect.

John Paul Parks (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Park's comments are rank hogwash. Roosevelt could comment on an encylopedic range of topics in English, Dutch, German and French. I suggest you read any standard biography on TR, even the critical ones. None of his biographers, including the most critical ones such as Henry Pringle ever said that TR was "incapable of intelligent comment on anything." I can't believe anyone who has even read this article on the most superficial level possible could come to such an inane conclusion.
I suggest you read what people who knew and worked with Roosevelt said about him, themselves on the 1st anniversary of his death in 1919. See a series of tributes paid to Roosevelt at the Rock Mountain Club in October of 1919 at\page&q=&f=false SimonATL (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like our critic is only familiar with TR from a TV movie or something. And he attacks someone's "defective moral character" by quoting Mark Hanna? Wha??? How corrupt and amoral was Hanna? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple Typo

I haven't made enough edits to be allowed to edit semi-protected pages but there is a lonely quotation mark after his book title "Published after Roosevelt's graduation from Harvard, The Naval War of 1812" was immediately accepted by reviewers who praised the book’s scholarship and style." (Here: [7]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImFromNASA (talkcontribs) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I have removed the extra qote. Thanks for noticing it. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 03:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt – no middle name

I just got an email from TR's great grandson, Tweed Roosevelt, who is the chairman of the Theodore Roosevelt Association (TRA). Mr. Roosevelt assured me that Theodore Roosevelt had neither a middle name nor middle initial. Additionally, US Navy Commander, Henry Hendrix, who is a board member of the TRA and who did research on this topic, has copies of TR's birth certificate and other documents that indicate NO middle name nor middle initial. Commander Hendrix is emailing these scanned documents to the TRA Web administrator for inclusion on their web site, and as soon as those documents are posted I will remove the middle initial from this page as it's pretty much a settled issue at this point. We'll wait for those docs to come thru. Be prepared for MI removal! Ultimately, it does NOT matter what the press thought or did not think about Roosevelt's alleged middle name or middle initial. The official records speak for themselves. SimonATL (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the earliest mention of Roosevelt's initial "D." is in 1895 ([8]) about his May 6 appointment to the New York Police Board of Commissioners, which reads, "Mayor Strong appointed to the Police Board of Commissioners some men of distinction, as Col. Frederick D. Grant (son of Gen. Grant) and Theodore D. Roosevelt, who resigned from the National Civil Service Commission to take this new work, Avery D. Andrews, a West Point graduate, and Andrew D. Parker. Mr. Roosevelt is the head of the commission." The four men listed here all have the initial "D.", which prompts me to wonder if the author simply assigned them the initial after Grant (whose initial is "D." for "Dent") because he did not know their middle names, sort of like how companies sometimes assign the initial "X." to employees with no middle name. Or perhaps more likely, all of the other men did have the initial "D.", and the typist simply was not being careful and gave it to Roosevelt, too. As a side note, here is a photo of these D-initialed men together: [9]. Also, Parker was later removed (on Saint Patrick's Day 1898) by Strong "on the ground of neglect of duty".[10] Back to the initial: here's the real clincher: another report on the Police Board of Commissioners lists Roosevelt as "Theodore W. Roosevelt" [11]. Some other contemporary claims to Teddy Roosevelt's initials: Theodore A. Roosevelt (1900); Theodore B. Roosevelt (1911 1902 1901 1899 1898); Theodore F. Roosevelt (1899); Theodore N. Roosevelt (1914); Theodore R. Roosevelt (1915); and Theodore S. Roosevelt (1907). Not to mention all the other men living in the late 19th and early 20th centuries named "Theodore Roosevelt", including one of the president's cousins, Theodore T. Roosevelt.[12] Based on the arguments laid out in the previous middle initial discussions ("Middle Name", "Middle initial?", "Middle initial...revisited", and "'D'"), this would indicate Roosevelt had multiple middle names. :) All this confusion, which is not confined to Wikipedia, may merit some discussion of his nonexistent initial in the article, though. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have heard that the cleaning of their middle names is a constant occupation for people without any. The old joke in my family was that my great-uncle's name was "Johnny None" after the middle name given him by the US Army. Jarhed (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Headings of "Education" and "First marriage and response to catastrophic loss"

The headings of "Education" and "First marriage and response to catastrophic loss" seem out of place. Shouldn't "Education" come before "First marriage and response to catastrophic loss"?

Education starts out talking about his home schooling, which happened during his childhood, and he didn't meet Alice until his junior year at Harvard, and they didn't marry until after his graduation.

Just seems very odd to me. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


footnote link #104 is broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It now points to the updated location. —ADavidB 08:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Small Typo

There appears to be a small typo in the "Meat Inspection Act" section. "...that are impure or falsely label, from..." should read "...that are impure or falsely labeled, from..."

--Loki74 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

corrected Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Which presidental photo?

I like clean and neat black and white at right. The orotone (gold tint) is scruffy and, like the other alternative, lacks detail:

President Theodore Roosevelt, 1904.jpg
Theodore Roosevelt 1904 - Copy.jpg
Theodore Roosevelt-Pach.jpg

The other alternative is also included as the one below, left. Votes from editors, please? This is an aesthetic question, not one we can solve by appear to WP:RS or WP:V or even WP:NPOV. SBHarris 18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't have the other two at other places in the article. The current one (i.e. top right) is fine for the infobox Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 06:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I do recall something in the MoS saying that if possible, the image;s subject should be facing the text, which is why I added the second one to the left. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 3 May 2010


Search word: Roosvelt. There is one instance under Popular Culture. Please add the correct vowel. Thank you. (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and thanks! Avicennasis @ 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Another edit request


In the {{sisterlinks}} template in the External links section, several of the projects ought to be disabled as they do not return useful results. Please disable Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikiversity by adding |wikt=no|b=no|v=no to the template. Also, I note several constructive comments and suggestions on this talkpage from non-autoconfirmed editors; perhaps it is time the protection were reviewed. (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done thanks ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And another

In the opening paragraph, the link to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) is rather odd; as it is part of the name, it would be best to incorporate "Progressive" into the link, like so: Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party of 1912. (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done also ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks heaps GB fan. (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome, I have also requested unprotection of the page per your suggestion. We will see what happens. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Linkfarm removed

Per WP:LINKFARM, I'm moving the extraordinarily numerous external links here for review and possible integration as citations: (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)