Talk:Herbert Hoover/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

whitehouse.gov

A lot of the information in here seems to be taken from other sites (mainly http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/hh31.html). Some words are changed... but this seems an awful lot like plagiarism to me...

sources need to be correctly cited. Works of the Federal government are not copyrighted, so the issue is an academic or moral one and not a legal one.

---

What does the sentence, "Many economies resulted from both commissions' recommendations," mean?

they saved money studerby 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, why not just say that? The existing quote seems to suggest that the commissions' recommendations resulted in the creation of the "government economies" (I would think the governments' economies would exist, so long as the governments themselves existed)... -- MyrddinEmrys 06:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Should perhaps be some mention of the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 which was what propelled him into the national spotlight as he headed relief efforts.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herbert_Hoover&action=edit#studerby 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture located here ([7]) is better. Does anyone else? SeanO 01:22, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

He looks a bit older in that photo. I don't think it's better or worse than the one we have now. -- not much of an opinion, from Infrogmation 01:32, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I can't see why the Presidents table I added should be deleted. It's very helpful. --65.73.0.137

I have been to [8] before to reaseasrch Herbert C. Hoover, and it has some pretty good info. If wikipedia HAS used that site as a source, I would expect at least two things:

1. That ALL of the information on the page be completely correct.

2. That Wikipedia would use its own words to describe the info they found at that site and that they do not copy very many words used to describe Herbert Hoover.

!!!Reseacher96!!!

Starvation in Belgium, error of figure ?

193.248.155.187 18:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC) "In all, the CRB saved ten million people from starvation."

How the commission with could save 10 000 000 people whereas it is more than the population of Belgium at the time?

10,000,000 is a commonly cited figure. The CRB fed all of occupied Belgium (about 7 million) and occupied northern France (about 3 million).

: 10 million is a very generous rounding. The actual number was closer to 9.2 million. But you're right; Hoover himself liked to round it off to 10. -- Finn-jd-john 17 December 2010

Hoover of Swiss descent?

Hoover is categorized as a Swiss-American, that mean he from Swiss descent. But the current article don't mention nothin about his relation to Switzerland. Could anyone add this, please? Thanks and greetings -- CdaMVvWgS 23:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing Chores

I added a complete bibliography and started editing the main entry. It's full of trivia that distract the user of an encyclopedia. Rjensen 23:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hoover in China

Should Hoover be added to the category Well-known foreign residents of China? I would argue not, simply because although he is well-known, he is not well-know for his period of work and residence in China --Dpr 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I should agree, because his work in China was not :

1. His biggest accomplishment.

2. The MOST IMPORTANT thing about his life.

3. He is basically only well-known for being a former president.

Reseacher96

Hoover was very proud of his work in Chinese mines. He covers that and his adventures in the Boxer Rebellion, see Memoirs, Years of Adventure 1874-1920. Both periods should be expanded in the article. He should be aded to Well-known foreign residents of China. Trojancowboy (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Charity

• Didn't Hoover turn his entire salary over to charity? [9] There are other sources, too. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is in sore need or many alterations to make it more gramatically correct, as well as a general rewrite for many parts to make it sound more scholarly. I'm too busy to do it now, but I'll try to make edits if I have time. If you see a sentence that needs fixing, please change it or bring it up here. --69.2.177.81 23:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorrym this was me. Didn't realize I wasn't logged in.--Az 01:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Second German period

I've added a paragraph about the time in 1946 - 1947 when Hoover toured the western allied occupation zones in Germany after President Truman asked him to. I've also added two of the reports he produced as a result of this tour to the external links section. I read somewhere that he used Goerings luxurious train for the tour, but I can't remember in which book. Stor stark7 16:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

Lead needs to be expanded in accordance with WP:LEAD. Lincher 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed

For being on hold for over a week.--SeizureDog 11:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

March 4, 1933

The claim in the present text that Hoover's term ended 23:59:59 3 March 1933 is a textbook example of original research: deduction from primary sources without checking secondary sources.

The relevant secondary source here is Susan Estabrooke Kennedy: The Banking Crisis of 1933, p.150-151; although I would be surprised to find any biography of Hoover or Roosevelt that differed. Some quotations:

• "At 2:30 a.m. on March 4, Lehman suspended banking in the State of New York through March 6."
• "One hour after Lehman's action, the governor of Illinois took the same step."
• "Herbert Hoover left office on March 4, 1933. without closing the nation's banks. Action by the governors... Hoover responded to the Federal Reserve Board's request for a holiday by pointing out that no national closing was necessary since the two governors had acted."

If the text were correct, Hoover should have referred the Fed to FDR, as President; since Hoover held that no action was necessary, his response cannot be explained as an emergency exercise of power. (And Roosevelt did not in fact act until Monday, March 6. op. cit. p 158.) Septentrionalis 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is my $0.02. Who was it that said that the past is a different world, and they do things differently there? Prior to the 20th Amendment, precision seems not to have been a major concern. This horrifies us because we are used to a world in which lack of presidential command authority for even a few minutes is a matter of clear public danger, but this was not so until well after the period under discussion. Consider that Buchanan effectively abandoned the office at least a month before inauguration, and that was the gravest and most time-critical crisis the country had known.

A good point of reference is the U.S. Senate report on Presidential terms. We seem to have no evidence that, prior to the date in question, the question had even come up, let alone that there was a consensus answer. Congress was never in session that day, and no real business was going to be transacted. The outgoing President was going to be saluted smartly, regardless of the answer, and had no duty other than signing some ceremonial papers and turning over keys. To my knowledge, Hoover was the first outgoing President to actually do anything (and even that was a decision to do nothing) between bedtime March 3 and inauguration.

Why should FDR have produced a constitutional crisis when he was not ready to act for another two days in any case? We can make no argument from silence in this instance.

The argument is that Hoover chose to take (a null) action, and respond to the Fed, rather than telling them to go see FDR.Septentrionalis 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

An action that Citizen Hoover was equally qualified to take. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider the historical imprecision. The penultimate (1787-8) Continental Congress provided the first Wednesday in January (the 7th) as the date for choosing electors, the first Wednesday in February (the 4th) as the date on which they could give their votes, and the first Wednesday in March (also the 4th) as the date to begin operations under the Constitution. There appears to have been an assumption that this fixed the starting, and therefore ending, dates for terms. The last (1788-9) Continental Congress never met, although delegates presented their credentials -- I suspect that most of these were also the chosen Senators, but I have not checked the point.

Because of bad weather, the new House had no quorum until April 1 and the Senate not until April 7. Thus, the new government was in effect, and the old dissolved, from March 4 until April 7 without any legislative, judicial or clear executive authority. (The secretaries under the Confederation continued to serve until replaced, albeit without a clear mandate. See McDonald, Randall and other Hamilton bios.) Finally, the electoral votes could be counted, to no one's surprise, and after much negotiation, April 30 was set as Washington's inauguration date, so the government ran with only leftover ministers of doubtful authority for another three weeks, and this during a credit crisis.

The First Congress seems to have assumed the March 4 date for its successors to take office, although it probably mattered little, and the Second passed legislation (1 Stat 241) enshrining it, but specifying no time of day. This could be interpreted as meaning midnight precisely, but I have found no evidence that anyone even considered the issue. This is not surprising, since several related questions were left fuzzy, such as whether the Vice President became President, or merely Acting President, upon death of the Chief Executive. It is hard to characterize something as a controversy if no one was arguing. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that vagueness was part of it; and there should be a discussion of the question in those terms, probably under President of the United States. But a tradition seems to have evolved by the time we are considering that terms ended on March 4, as the document you cite says. " From 1789 through 1937, presidential and vice presidential terms ended on March 4 of every year following a presidential election, a date set by the Second Congress." The Sixty-Sixth Congress adjourned immediately before noon, March 4, 1921, after inviting Wilson as President to send a message; and they had sent him a load of last minute bills to sign, I gather because they expected to be adjourned until December. I'm working backwards; I'll see how far this can be documented. Septentrionalis 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So, clearly the 66th Congress, at least, felt that congressional (and presumably Presidential) terms continued into the 4th. In that case the term was probably understood as ending upon the swearing-in of a successor. I wonder if there is any instance of a President having himself sworn in at 12:01 AM. And, yes, I missed the fact that the Senate report clearly gives the 4th as the ending date. That's what I get for reading in haste. I suspect, on a priori grounds, that nothing controversial was done on the morning of the 4th of March. Signing bills at the last minute sounds to me like avoiding the messy constitutional question of the status of bills that remain unsigned within the ten day period when a new President takes office. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your conjecture seems entirely plausible. The notices on Coolidge and Wilson say they spent the morning of the 4th "signing bills", without specifying them. Septentrionalis 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hoover's term ended at the first moment of March 4, 1933 (i.e., 00:00:00 4 March 1933, which is coincident with 24:00:00 3 March 1933, or the last moment of March 3, 1933). The reason for this is the principle under English common law that for legal purposes, everything that takes place during a day is considered to take place at the first moment (i.e., midnight) of the day. So a four-year term beginning on March 4 is considered to begin at the first moment of March 4 and to end at the first moment of March 4 (or the last moment of March 3) four years later. It is for this reason that full presidential terms before 1937 are commonly given as "March 4, 18__, to March 3, 18__," since the incumbent president never served for even one moment of the March 4 on which his successor's term began. This legal principle -- well-known in the 19th century -- is why it was unnecessary for the Second Congress to specify a specific time for the end of a president's term. The fact that presidential term of office ended at midnight was understood from the very beginning of the country's history. The judges appointed by President John Adams in the final moment of his term -- which resulted in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison -- were called "midnight judges" because Adams was supposedly signing commissions up until midnight. It is not true that precision was not a concern before the 20th century. Throughout the 19th century, Congress would frequently operate late into the night on March 3 because it was well aware that the term of office of the representatives and one-third of the Senate would end at midnight. 69.180.20.121 3:40, November 18, 2006

Did not swear oath of office on bible, but affirmed it?

I read today (http://www.startribune.com/484/story/846590.html) that Herbert Hoover did not swear his oath of office on the Bible, but rather affirmed it. I know this fact and his reasons for doing so are are interesting information and should be added. 208.42.95.155 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He was a Quaker. Therefore it stands to reason that he affirmed rather than swore. Why is this so interesting? -- Zsero (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoover neither said "I swear" nor "I affirm." Hoover did not repeat the entire oath. Chief Justice Taft read the oath, beginning with "Do you, Herbert Hoover, solemnly swear...," to which Hoover replied "I do." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.185.66 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoover in China, again

Surely on a biographical article of this magnitude mention should be made of Herbert and Lou Hoover's participation in the Boxer Rebellion? They were both very much involved in the defense of Tientsin, yet not a mention here. --Harlsbottom 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please fix this gibberish

The line in the first paragraph--"He showed the Efficiency Movement component of the Progressive Era, arguing there were other solutions to all social and economic problems"--is complete gibberish. What is it supposed to mean? Is it the product of a flawed edit? What does "showed" mean here? "Other solutions" besides what? Would somebody who knows what is going on please fix it? 4.246.120.170 10:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

good point! I tried to fix it. Rjensen 10:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivial Fact - Hoover appears to have had no prior elected office

It appears that Hoover was never elected to any office other than POTUS. Is there any other President who held no other office. If not, I think that would be an interesting addition to the Trivia. Rick 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just be sure to say 'elected' to any other office, because he did 'hold' public office, as Commerce Sec'y, although it was unelected. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A little further reading and I have refuted myself. I seem to have forgotten about the Generals, Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower. Rick 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The chicken in every pot? I think not

The phrase "A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage." is listed as one of Hoover's 1928 Presidential Campaign Slogans. However, while this was purportedly Herbert Hoover’s 1928 Presidential campaign slogan, the phrase originally came from a Republican National Committee newspaper advertisement which reminded voters that previous Republican Presidents Harding and Coolidge had put the proverbial ‘chicken into every pot.’ Hoover himself paraphrased these ideas in many different forms, though he never actually made the above statement as it is listed in the Wiki page. For more information, visit the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. http://hoover.archives.gov/info/faq.html#chicken BigboyBrown85 05:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoover's campaign used the slogan in 1928 as Hoover claimed credit for the prosperity. I don't see any problem here--everyone knows that campaign ads are written by staffs -- note that today in TV ads the candidate has to say "I approve this ad" (not "I wrote this ad"). Rjensen 08:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that politicians do in fact condone ads which they may or may not personally have reviewed nor in which they themselves make a statement, but the issue I have with the Hoover campaign slogan is that neither Hoover, nor the GOP, nor any subsidiary supporting him actually spoke, wrote, or campaigned using the slogan as written. It has become an amalgamation of phrases that have now become part of popular culture, not an actual campaign slogan. I am only noting this because while conducting research on consumer cultures, this phrase came up in researching/writing. However, citation was difficult due to the fact that Hoover never spoke the statement nor was it printed.--BigboyBrown85 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The slogan was used by the Hoover campaign according to reliable sources. William Safire, Safire's New Political Dictionary -- the standard source-- says (p 117) it appeared in a GOP campaign flier of 1928 entitled " A Chicken in Every Pot." Hoover of course was reponsible for choosing his campaign managers and was well known as a micromanager who looked over everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Campaigns in 1928 were much different than today; Hoover had much less control over party activities. The connection between "a chicken in every pot" and Hoover can be traced to a paid advertisement that is believed to have originated with the Republican National Committee, which was run in a number of newspapers during the 1928 campaign. Hoover was not personally responsible for the ad, nor did he endorse it or "approve" it.

The accomplishments of 8 years of Republican administration were enumerated at great length in the body of the advertisement, which read in part, "Republican prosperity has reduced hours and increased earning capacity, silenced discontent, put the proverbial 'chicken in every pot.' And a car in every backyard, to boot." The advertisement concluded that "Wages, dividends, progress and prosperity say, 'Vote for Hoover.'"

In some ways, it is more or less analagous to modern "special interest" ads that candidates have little or no control over. On the other hand, it is historically significant that the Democrats were able to (legitimately or not) use it to great effect to discredit Hoover. An accutate account would take both sides into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.185.66 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalized?

I think this page may have purposely been vandalized. I am doing a project on Herbert Hoover and I have textbooks opened and I have discovered that a lot of dates are off by one, names are being mispelled, and some details are not true. Could someone find out if this is true?

Hubert Shiau, AIM: hmshiau 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Find out if which part of the article is correct? You know, the articles on the site are open to anyone to edit, so maybe someone edited this one incorrectly.

Reseacher96

alot of the details are correct, like his birthdate, death date, and which president he was. I don't know enough about him yet (doing a research project) to say which details arecorrect and which are incorrect.....

Reseacher96

IP deletions

Ok, not sure what the deal is here, but if there is a problem with this information please make a note on the talk page, or at least put in an edit summary. Otherwise, it just looks like vandalism. and will probably be reverted. — MrDolomite | Talk 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the sort of statement, which, while probably true, really should have citation; preferably of someone who says that it is the consensus of historians. I do not claim that the anons have acted in good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Senate seat?

In 1949, New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey offered Hoover a Senate; Hoover declined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.13 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

was herbert hoover really assassinated...i dont remember that part of history class -mk92008

Humanitarianism

I don't think creating two sub-sections labelled "Republican" and "Non-Republican Viewpoints" is suitable for a biography. It would be better if the editor who originally included this as a separate sub-section (moved here from the Article), merged the pros-and-cons into one, cohesive section for better readibility and encyclopedic form: JGHowes ^talk - 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

- The following are quotations from various historical references written since the time of Hoover's rule as President. - Note that many of the 'humanitarian efforts' mentioned above were diplomatically strategic activities overseas, not efforts to relieve the suffering of Americans, and that Hoover's later tariff's had the opposite effect of making American food exports less accessible to the poor overseas. Meanwhile, Americans starved and the number of homeless increased dramatically. Rather than providing assets to citizens to increase their economic power, money was given to corporations (largely responsible for the Stock Market crash) instead to 'feed the strong' and watch the wealth 'trickle down'. Hoover's record on civil rights was horrific. Many of his actions were anything but humanitarian: - - "Though most Blacks voted the Republican ticket before 1932 (because of Lincoln's reputation as the emancipator), some prominent Black leaders... left the (Republican) party because of the record of President Hoover on the Black problem, and the machinations of the Republican leaders at the expense of Blacks. (Hoover) had done nothing to change the ban on Black civil service workers in the government dining rooms. He had not hired more Black federal employees, nor made significant Black appointments to office; if anything, Hoover had reduced the number of Black appointments.... He refused to speak out on the continued lynching of Black citizens. His nomination of Judge John J Parker of South Carolina to the Supreme Court had shaken Blacks because of that jurist's anti-Black comments, and his expressed feeling that Blacks should not vote. When the federal government send mothers of soldiers killed in action to Europe to view their graves, and assigned the Black mothers to grossly inferior accommodations. Whites and Blacks blamed Hoover for the Depression 'being what followed after the 1929 Stock Market crash) -- as many persons continue to do today. And his slowness in suffering did not help matters." (Hodges, pp 197-198). - - "Early in 1930 President Herbert Hoover called a special session of Congress to take up tariff revision, which he had promised in his presidential campaign the previous fall. Hoover primarily wanted to have tariff rates raised on agricultural products... Hoover signed the (Smoot-Hawley) Act into law on June 17 despite the fact that on May 4 a petition signed by 1028 economists had been sent to Washington urging defeat of the proposed legislation. Within two years, 25 nations retaliated by raising duties on US goods. The economic nationalism triggered by this legislation has been blamed for deepening the worldwide depression." (Carruth, p 713).

I question this article's neutrality!

For one thing, it contains the following sentence: "A progressive and a reformer at heart, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans not by resorting to dictatorship or socialism, but rather through lawful regulation and by encouraging volunteerism."

I don't know that calling Hoover a progressive or reformer is at all accurate. The sentence also seems to equate socialism with dictatorship, a view that Hoover might have held, but that we are not inclined to swallow as true on its face and a "fact" about Hoover. This reads like an indictment of F.D. Roosevelt's policies, which had a strong socialist element. It also seems to treat the question of "resorting to" new approaches as if it applies to improving ordinary conditions rather than the extraordinary problems of the Great Depression. It seems to cast Hoover in an artificially good light, since not resorting to dictatorship, far from being a progressive and reform attitude, is at best the bare minimum of what we expect from a president. Presidents don't deserve praise for being presidents and not dictators! Finally, Hoover fought resisted regulation, although it is true that he didn't just sit on his hands during the Depression, as critics have often suggested. There is a lot of room to defend Hoover's record without resorting to partisan rhetoric.

38.96.154.84 15:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In 1928, Hoover *was* considered Progressive. He was considerably farther left economically than Harding or Coolidge, much to the unhappiness of conservative Republicans. Even FDR accused Hoover of dangerous radicalism for resorting to deficit spending during the Depression. It is an oversimplification to suggest that Hoover was far to the right of the New Deal. Recent historical scholarship has depicted Hoover as a transitional figure who laid the foundation for the New Deal.

It is true, though, that the quote is a veiled stab at the New Deal. Hoover (and many who agreed with him) thought that Roosevelt went too far with his "socialistic" programs. A different wording might be appropriate. It is important, however, to emphasize Hoover's preference for voluntary and/or local solutions to problems as a way to avoid bureaucratic inefficiency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.185.66 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New edit with some parenthetical thoughts

Due notice: I am an amateur historian, no expert on Hoover, and consider myself a radical progressive. See http://peaceworld.freeservers.com/020TABLEOFCONTENTS.htm for a dolop of where I come from.

Wiki has done us all too many reference favors, for me to turn my back on this ambush editor’s kill zone. Too many easy rewrites for me to ignore. Besides, I suspect that Bush the Lesser’s insanity may soon come home to roost; and references to the Great Depression and Hoover’s part in it may rate universal interest. Fasten your seatbelts! But I digress…

This text appears to have originated from a grateful Belgian national whose elders told him how Hoover had shielded them, virtually single-handed, from lethal starvation. I can only envy such reverence. Thus, the favorable tone of this article, unfamiliar to we Americans. I find nothing wrong in that, provided it be textually factual. This guy’s facts appear to be bullet-proof, as far as my ignorance could tell. Most of my corrections consist in humble improvements to his school-boy English. His alleged French text in Wiki.fr is radically different, yet reassuringly similar. I found no help consulting it. Optimally, I should have taken his raw text in French and translated it directly into English. Facts and priorities are totally different between these two texts, some of which I could not resolve (???). Besides, I don’t have the time… Plus I may be totally mistaken as to the source and intent of this text.

I drew the line when he referred to Hoover as a “progressive.” Reformer, yes; progressive, no. I also subtly modified his treatment of the American-Indian issue. I had a hard time handling his references to Hoover’s “political rehabilitation,” and his references to "dangerous" radicalism. Otherwise, I believe I left the meaning of this text intact, insofar I could.

Once cleaned up in this manner, his original text comes out surprisingly balanced, well-researched and thorough.

One yawning gap in this text is Hoover’s cherry-picking during his two post-war tenures as Food Aid Czar for Central Europe. He propped up right-wing totalitarians and starved socialist political movements. His sorry example has been the model of U.S. food aid ever since. Rather than supporting moderates, pragmatists and centralists, regardless of their opinion of America, we have always supported pro-Western, pro-corporatist extremists on the Right, starved progressives, and forced everyone to crush all moderates. Our foreign policy has suffered from this prejudice. Some expert should insert a paragraph to that effect, in as much loving detail as the author provided throughout the rest of his text. I am not qualified, nor do I care to try.

Hoover strikes me as a tragic hero. Unlike Bush, he was smart, industrious and highly motivated to help others. Like Bush, his dogma could not stand the cruel test of cold reality. While he and his views could get by and even flourish in peace, victory and at least relative prosperity; they could never handle threats of war, social confrontation and economic collapse. A lesson to all of us, in the hubris of political fundamentalism, be it from the Left or the Right, and its consequences.

I rest my case. Markmulligan 02:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio from archive.org

I have reported this article as copyright violation. Text in the section "Great Depression", and possibly other text, has been copied verbatim from http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/hoover-1.html. Search for "Organized labor" in both articles. This was originally reported by 136.152.180.48 (see article history). CoderGnome (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Bias.

This article is wildly biased in favor of making Hoover look a saint. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the desire to correct the opinions, judgements, etc. of whomever edited this article and involve myself in the back-and-forth debate that may well ensue. I leave that task in the hands of someone with a modicum of neutrality, which quality this article sadly lacks. Atthom 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. John Hamill's muckraking 1931 expose "The Strange Case of Mr Hoover Under Two Flags" reveals a dark side of the great humanitarian. From his role in weaseling control of the Kaiping coal complex from its Chinese owners (which is documented in court transcripts) to the financial machinations in which he participated as an employee and later partner in Bewick Moreing, it's clear that Herbert Hoover was neither a saint nor an ethical businessman. Bewick Moreing enriched its partners by front-running the stocks of mines under its control, a series of frauds which Hoover abetted. The company was sued repeatedly by disgruntled investors; their loss was, of course, Hoover's gain. For an informative and balanced summation, see: http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2006/12/herbert-hoover-made-in-china.html

Given the polarity of opinion on Hoover, it would be remarkable if Wikipedia could manage a definitive portrait, hampered as it is by the inherent weaknesses of its methodology. I second Atthom's criticism; the present bio reads too much like a PR handout written by one of Herbert Hoover's many flaks. Captqrunch (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Hamill's book has been discredited as a politically motivated hit piece. Hamill himself actually apologized publicly and recanted the whole thing. I own a copy of it and although it contains plentiful reassurances of rock-solid sources, there's not a single footnote or citation of a primary source (so far as I could find). There are plenty of bad things to day about Hoover's presidency without relying on a source that is, at the very least, strongly suspect. --Finn-jd-john, 17 December 2010

----

Well, I do have time :) What a truly rewarding experience this has been. The current Great Depression chapter is woefully biased, incomplete, and in some cases, just plain inaccurate. IMO, the Great Depression defined Herbert Hoover, so I was sad to see that an anon had written such an article - and worse yet, it's been live for two years! Also, several of the citations were questionable (a HuffPost commentary is hardly a reliable source).

So, I've spend a few days researching like mad, and I've rewritten the chapter. Glad to hear your comments.

Here's a list of my changes:

removed and/or rewrote the most obviously biased passages

added information about "Hoovervilles" - can't believe this wasn't there before.

Smoot-Hawley and the 1932 Revenue act had some pretty volatile wording, and didn't do much to explain Hoover's role. Phrases like "hiked taxes" and an unexplained finger pointing at Canada seem odd to me - especially considering EUROPE was the main opponent of Smoot-Hawley from what I have read.

the anecdote about the First Lady and the the Girl Scouts was cute, but does not relate to the Great Depression. Is there a wiki for the Mrs. Hoover? It should probably go there.

The information referring to the Hoover Moratorium was complete hackery. There was already a financial meltdown occurring in Europe, and in the end, the Moratorium was dismissed at the Lausanne Conference, providing no relief in the end.

The "outline of other actions Hoover took" list was the reason I started this edit. Here each of the bullet points, and why they are no longer there:

1 - repetitive, covered earlier in the article

2 - the Agriculture Marketing Act was signed into law in April of 1929, six-months before Black Friday. Should be moved to the POLICIES section if it's going to stay

3 - I would hardly call the ERCA 'unemployment' assistance. the ERCA released money for public works programs, and provided temporary employment to some, but the act was mainly about the founding of the RFC. The author confuses readers - when you read 'unemployment assistance' you think 'getting an unemployment check' which is not at all what the ERCA was about.

4.1 - Asking Congress for money is not really an actionable item. There's no citation, so for all i know the bill included legislation that was strongly opposed 4.2 - With no citation, this is hard to validate. In fact, I was unable to find any information about a "Division of Public Construction" so perhaps they were only directed to establish it, but never did. need clarification. 4.3 - No citation, so hard to say if this had anything to do with the Great Depression 4.4 - Urged?

5 - A good point, and I have added it to my edit

6 - I've heard this before, but never been able to get any solid facts on it. Anyone else have any luck?

7 - Again, quite slanted in the way it reads, but it did happen, so i've included it in my revision.

8 - NCC information is misleading, I've clarified in my revision

9 - No real evidence that this was anything more than rhetoric.

10 - Included in my revision.

404notfound1 (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Some sections suffer from severe POV and OR problems.

While much of the article is perfectly fine, somebody has clearly been pushing POV in several sections (usually unreferenced or relying on original research). Reading through it, I'm finding a number of very unencyclopedic lines such as "It is not accurate, as was routinely claimed by his Democratic opponents, that Hoover "did nothing" in the face of the crisis..." or "A progressive and a reformer at heart, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans not by resorting to dictatorship or socialism, but rather through lawful regulation..." These are opinions. The question is, whose opinions are they? If they are the opinions of notable historians, then they need to be phrased and sourced as such. If they are the opinions of the editor(s) that added the lines, then they need to be removed.

I'm going to tag some sections and start cleaning up some of the problem paragraphs. If any of my edits seem incorrect, please discuss here. Thanks.--Loonymonkey (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Smoot-Hawley Tariff

The idea that Hoover signed the S-H tariff "reluctantly" is grossly misinformed. A high protective tariff was one of his main campaign promises and when Congress sent him a bill that had the features he had asked for, he signed it. You can read his signing statement here. For comparison, Hoover's statement on the Bonus amendment of 1931 (passed over his veto) shows him expressing reluctance. WillOakland (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful reference to Finnish tribute to Hoover

Under the Humanitarian section, the article says: 'In addition, the Finns added the word hoover, meaning "to help," to their language in honor of his two years of humanitarian work.'

As a native Finnish speaker, I know of no such word, and "hoover" would not be an acceptable verb by Finnish conjugation. A quick Google search turns up no applicable hits for "hooveroida," "hoovertaa," or "hooverata," which would be clumsy but acceptable forms. The Finnish wikipedia article on Herbert Hoover also makes no mention of this.

This site makes the same claim: http://www.cornellcollege.edu/history/courses/stewart/HIS260-3-2006/01%20one/fin.htm

The only item on that site's reference list that makes the claim is this: http://www.exploredc.org/index.php?id=114

Neither site is quite convincing enough. It is conceivable that over the many years since Hoover's efforts the word has passed from use. Still, I find the claim doubtful on a linguistic basis. Is there any other serious source that thinks "hoover" was at any time a verb in Finnish? Or, could a Finnish speaker who has ever seen the word used confirm this?

--Mimu Bunnylin 62.244.14.38 (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoover and the US Geological Survey

John Hamill, in his critical biography "The Strange Case of Mr Hoover Under Two Flags," states that Hoover's connection with the USGS was simply that as a student, he took summer jobs assisting geology professors working under contract for USGS, in Arkansas and California. If true, the statement that he began his career at USGS is misleading. I can't prove that he pumped his resume, however; hopefully, someone else can and will rewrite. Captqrunch (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Family Background and Early Life

I am making three changes to the first paragraph of the section "Family Background and Early Life."

1. Removing reference to "Herbert Robert Ewing" a supposed friend of Jesse Hoover and source of Herbert Hoover's name. Family records at the Hoover Library indicate that Herbert Hoover's name was suggested by his aunt, Ann Minthorn Heald. See: The Life of Herbert Hoover Vol. 1 by George Nash.

2. Correcting Hoover's age when orphaned. His mother died in Feb. 1884, six months before his 10th birthday.

3. Correcting reference to Kingsley, Iowa. The myth that HH lived for one or two years in Kingsly was the product of a faulty memory of an aged citizen of that city. Hoover's grandmother lived there, and court records at the Hoover Library indicate that the three children stayed with her while their mother's estate was settled. Less than two months later, HH returned to West Branch where he lived with his uncle Allen Hoover until moving to Oregon in 1885. (His sister continued to live with their grandmother in Kingsley, while the older brother Theodore lived with a different uncle in Hardin County, Iowa.) Hoover's Uncle Allen received compensation from the estate for HH's board and room, which was again corroborated by court documents. See: The Life of Herbert Hoover Vol. 1 by George Nash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goeben (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this article really need a section dedicated to schools named after Hoover???

This, I believe, is the least useful information in the entire article. The article is about Herbert Hoover the man and the president, not Herbert Hoover, the namesake of schools. Why not just add sections for street names or bus stations named after him? Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your school. A school can have its own article, but lets leave this article dedicated to the man, not whats named after him. This section must go, but i would love to hear reasons for keeping it in.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and removed the section. KnightLago (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't want to do it without at least bringing it up on the talk page. I know how some editors get whn it comes to that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. In the future I would suggest less caps, that can annoy some people :-) KnightLago (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A better idea may have been to branch this into its own article, List of honors named for Herbert Hoover. This would be akin to other such articles, like List of honors named for Ronald Reagan and other such articles... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoover, the word

File:Hoovervile.jpg

It's probably a trivial thing, but I was struck by the photograph of the urchins, with their sign that says "hard times are still 'Hoover'-ing over us". It's not dated or even located, but I assume it's from the US in the early 1930s. In the UK "hoover" is synonymous with both "vacuum cleaner" and "to vacuum clean", but was this the case in the US during Herbert Hoover's presidency? The slogan could either be a pun on the word hovering, or it could be implying that Hoover's policies were somehow sucking up the poor (in a bad way); which is the case? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias, claims and source attributions about the depression

The article has statements such as "Prior to the start of the Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, had proposed, and saw enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. As a result, the depression worsened." What sources would show that hiked taxes improve a weakening economy and lower taxes weaken an economy? In what economic theory is this grounded? I find statements like these to be highly politically biased, rather than founded in any real observable fact or theory, especially when claims are lacking any source attribution whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.246.240.14 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following text from that section -

The tax increase induced a rapid rise in the stock market from a low of 41 in 1932 to a high of 195 in 1937 . During the same period, unemployment dropped from 24.9% to about 14% .

The sources cited are entirely composed of statistics tracking the stock market and unemployment, with no analysis whatsoever of the causes in fluctuations of either. I don't know why this was put in the article but I agree that it has no grounding whatsoever in economic theory.Krazychris81 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I removed the phrase "As a result the depression worsened" and replaced it with "When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget." Krazychris81 (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with these removals. Per WP:SYNTH, this was a clear novel synthesis of ideas. To note that one source shows a tax increase, and a second source notes a rise in stock prices does not allow anyone to draw conclusions that the tax increase actually caused the rise in stock prices. Unless a reliable source draws that conclusion itself, we cannot do that here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow the apologists are out in force here. Or should I say libertarians? Look, Hoover *was* fiscally conservative for 3 years of the Depression. In fact the only thing he did was reduce liquidity by tightening regulations. It demonstrably hurt the US. Keynes was right, the Libertarians are wrong, and now they and the right wing are trying to rewrite history. 75.187.62.233 (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Which explains why when FDR came along, he did the exact same things Hoover'd started, but more so. Yep. - Denimadept (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment reduced by increasing taxes?

The article states, without citation, that "Unemployment rose to 24.9% by the end of Hoover's presidency in 1933, at the depth of the Great Depression. However, as a result of his latter actions, such as the Revenue Act of 1932, unemployment steadily decreased over the next four years. "

I don't think that most economists would agree that it was "actions such as" the Revenue Act of 1932 that helped to reduce unemployment. Raising taxes does not usually reduce unemployment, and economists tend to think that any possible stimulus from the massive spending programs of Hoover and FDR was killed by the high tax rates of the time, particularly from the high rates enacted with the Revenue Act of 1932 - cite: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1811908

I suggest that unless there are good citations for that claim, it be removed.

66.134.221.75 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Worst?

The statement "Hoover has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the worst U.S. Presidents" does not appear to be backed up by the lists in the article it links to, where Hoover is more often than not near the middle of the rankings. At least the 'consistently' should be removed, if not the entire statement. Roger Pilgham (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for erasing that false statement. Hoover was not one of the worst U.S. Presidents. Our WP article Historical rankings of United States Presidents doesn't support that claim. AdjustShift (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

31st out of 44 Presidents is pretty low... --MissMeticulous (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The section on the treatment of Negroes in the Mississippi floods has been written in modern politically correct style and is not neutral. The term Negro would have been used because African-American would not be invented for nearly 50 years. This section should either be rewritten from a neutral standpoint or be deleted. Trojancowboy (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If we included any direct quotes, then we would of course use the original terminology contained in the quotes, but otherwise I don't know that there's any reason to use "Negro" in that section. In any case, whether or not Hoover thought he had broken any promises, black leaders certainly thought so, which had long-reaching political consequences -- it accelerated the black movement to the Democratic party, and arguably the relationship between the Republican party and mainstream black political leadership still hasn't fully recovered today, almost 80 years later. So the section certainly should not be deleted. AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the need for the section to be rewritten or deleted. AdjustShift (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And no reason to use "Negro" in that section either. AdjustShift (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Colliquial language is not vital in a neutral point of view. --MissMeticulous (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Road to War and World War II

This entire section has no refererences. More importantly, Hoover makes no mention of meeting with Hitler in his three volume memiors which run to 1500 pages. About 10 mentions of Hitler exist there, but none about a personal meeting. This section is likely bogus. Trojancowboy (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The bio is not that well referenced. I also couldn't find references supporting the above claim. AdjustShift (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Libertarians?

I'm not sure what this sentence adds to the discussion: "For this reason, years later libertarians argued that Hoover's economics were statist." It also isn't referenced in any way. I'll leave it in, but add a tag indicating it needs a reference. There's nothing worse than sentences of the type, "Some people say this..." with no reference. Jamesia (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In the end, rather than tag the sentence for a reference, I deleted it outright. When searching for the proper tag to use, I came across the Burden_of_evidence section, where Wikipedia's founder suggests "aggressive" deletion of these kinds of sentences. Jamesia (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Rexford Tugwell citation should be removed

1. It is a serious exaggeration to propose that the blueprint for the New Deal came from Hoover, as this short paragraph implies, all based on a quotation from one man. 2. It is not a direct quotation from Rexford Tugwell, but from a PBS web page about a specialist on the Hoover Dam. The original source of the quotation is not given in the cited web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpbird (talk • contribs) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoover was an eugenicist

Herbert Hoover was also an eugenicist.Herbert Hoover lent to Franklin Delano Roosevelt three terrible things: a)The worst depression in american history. b)Invasion of China by Japan, in 1931. c)The creation of Third Reich, in january 1933.

Herbert Hoover was a calamity to the world.Agre22 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Got any refs for that? Sounds like opinion to me. - Denimadept (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

About the link of this American President to eugenics, please read these sites: [Eugenics Hoover 1] and [Eugenics Hoover 2].This other site: [Eugenics Time line] writes:"1921 The second International Congress of Eugenics is held in New York. The sponsoring committee includes Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, among others."Agre22 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Okay, now I've done that. The first link you provide appears to be a religiously-biased conspiracy site. The second one understand that people can look at things and be affected by them without being defined by them. The third site just says, as you quote, that the man was there. What "eugenics" meant then, and what "communist" meant in the '30s, are like what "hippie" and "war protester" meant in the '60s. They were just something you tried. Sorry if that sounds like I'm being an apologist for them. - Denimadept (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Food Administration

It would be worth expanding the Food Administration material. (There's no separate article on it.) I remember my professor emphasizing the impact of Hoover's WWI experiences on his subsequent career. --Bill Harshaw (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover referenced in Template:New Deal but said template isn't on this page?

Just pointing out a minor inconsistency. You all are free to figure out why this is. --64.5.15.136 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Source problem

The article claims (the economy section) that Roosevelt during the election campaign criticised Hoover for: leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.". There's a common source, link #36, for all of the claims in that passage. Now, the source given does document that Roosevelt criticised Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending and the source also includes the passage: "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible". The John Nance Garner quote is in the Time article as well. However, the source given does not, as far as I have been able to ascertain, anywhere in the text include the "leading the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history"-passage; it most certainly is not on the same page as the rest of the quotes, and I have been unabled to find it anywhere else in the article. The editor who wrote this passage should either point out that I'm wrong, and provide a specific page number and/or link from the Time article as to where the passage in question is to be found, or he or she should add another source where the proposition is documented. After I'm finished here, I will add a "citation needed" in the article where the problem is found. If this problem is not addressed within a reasonable timeframe, I shall delete the passage in question from the article: The current source does not contain all the information it is alleged to contain.

Knowledgelover121 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"To date, Hoover was the last President to have held a full cabinet position.[citation needed]". Sorry, but I just don't think there is any way this could be cited. There are probably no lists of Presidents who have not held a full cabinet position. I think maybe people need to ease up on the "citation needed" - just my opinion. Boris B (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what research is for, Boris. If it can't be cited, it should be removed. - Denimadept (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that sentence since it's still not adequately cited. LK (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First Canadian-American president

Since the page for Barack Obama states, quite arbitrarily, that he is the first African-American president, it makes no sense to omit the fact that Herbert Hoover was the first Canadian-American president, as his mother was from Canada. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what "African-American" means. They're just saying he's black/negro/got-african-heritage, not that he was born there. Also, new things go at the bottom of talk pages. Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Australian pictures

I've uploaded two pictures related to Hoover's time in Australia. One of a mirror he donated to a hotel in Kalgoorlie and the other of the poem he send with it. They are:

• File:Hoovers mirror.jpg
• File:Hoovers poem.jpg

They're not of very good quality but a good example of his connection to Australia. Calistemon (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions to be clarified

Hello everyone. I am trying to translate this article into Chinese when I came across a couple of questions. I may append more questions as my works goes on. --Nrgbooster (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It is said that "After a brief stay with one of his grandmothers in Kingsley, Iowa". However, can anyone tell me if this grandmother is Hoover's matrilineal one or patrilineal one? While I suppose it is patrilineal one since his mother was born in Canada, I may still need some certification. BTW, that I ask this question is because in Chinese language you have to explicitly point out if a relative is on distaff or spear side by using its rather complex and uncompromising kinship naming system.
2. It is said that "Hoover and his wife picked up Mandarin Chinese while he worked in China and used it during his tenure at the White House when they did not want to be overheard." Yet I want to know if this can be unchallengeably interpreted as "he can speak Chinese". If so I may use a question like "Do you know who is the only American president who could speak Chinese?", with an intriguing one as such appearing on the main page of Chinese Wikipedia I suppose it must attract a lot of people.

More NPOV issues

There was a paragraph that mentioned Hoover's "idealistic fantasies" and "ineptitude to understand the need for government intervention and regulation", and claimed that "the country was headed towards financial ruin from the lack of institutional regulation of business". This is obvious Pro-New-Deal, anti-laissez-faire, left-wing propaganda, and does not belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.225.89 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

In the section "Presidential election of 1928", under the sub-head "General election", the next-to-last paragraph begins with this sentence:

"Herbert Hoover's wife, Lou Henry Hoover, came to the White House, unlike her predecessors as First Ladies."

This sentence doesn't make sense, as there seems to be a word or words missing; can anyone provide a correction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.73.97 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported, generally disputed 'lead' claim that Hoover favored and acted by 'voluntary measures'

As part of the first, main paragraph, these 'lead' statements are powerful and required a higher standard. This sentence does not meet the stricter requirements of a 'lead'.

The connection of 'voluntary measures' and Hoover's ineffective response to the Crash of 1929 seems vague and unsupported. There are two camps of historians and economist, one that strongly disagrees with that statement. Specifically, the later references citing specifics of increased spending and increased taxes in the Revenue Act (1932) would directly refute and contractict this main causality claim. An increase in spending and taxes is not 'voluntary measures'.

Wikipedia should either mention the opposing view, remove it to a more supporting position in the article or remove this reference totally. Instead, I recommend that the 'lead' would improve by discussing separately the historians disputes about Hoover's response from the election comparison that lead to Hoover's defeat:

'The acknolwedged failure of Hoover's response to the Crash of 1929 some historians and economists argue stems from Hoover' response as too small (citing larger measures undertaking in the next (Roosevelt) administration and some argue as Hoover's response as too large (citing spending and taxes issues discussed below). In either case, its failure was the major issue in Hoover's election loss to Roosevelt. The campaign honed on 'voluntary measures', a reference to a statement, not by Hoover, but by Secretary Mellon (1922), during Hoover's time in the Coolidge adminstration, to argue Hoover's response was too small. While economists argue both sides, historians agree the election compared Hoover as less responsive versus Roosevelt as more responsive, and Roosevelt won the election in a landslide.'

Most likely, the edit might exclude 'voluntary measure's which would move out of the lead and into a later area describing the election period. 'Voluntary measures' itself might not belong in the lead, first as it, as the cause Hoover's response failure is not argeed as used in the current version of the article, and second, 'voluntary measure' references even have disputes somewhat as there is a Roosevelt quote cited in the below reference arguing the opposite in the campaign. It might be too strong for the lead.

Here is evidence of historians specifically taking the opposite view of Hoover and voluntary measures.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arno Vigen (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's also possible that he changed his mind. And from what I understand, he started in a direction that FDR continued but moreso. And they were both wrong, by current thinking.

If you feel it's wrong, change it. WP:BOLD, but support with all refs you can! - Denimadept (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sentence: "Some historians claim..."

Recently, a sentence in the article was removed (with another sentence) and then that removal was undone.

The removed sentence was:

Some historians claim that Hoover made attempts to stop "the downward spiral" of the Great Depression by hoping that the private sector would recover largely through its own volition.[38] 38. Dorsey, Tracy. "Robert Reich interview", The Duncan Group, May 2008.

I am re-removing the sentence for the following reasons.

• The phrase "some historians claim" constitutes WP:Weasel words.
• The cited source does not support the claim.
  • The citation is for an interview with Robert Reich, an economist, not a historian.
  • There is nothing about historians in the interview.
  • There is nothing that says that Hoover made attempts "by hoping that the private sector would recover largely through its own volition".
• The wording "made attempts ... by hoping" is a contradiction, and seems to be an attempt to suggest Hoover was being irrational, in violation of WP:NPOV.
• Reich does discuss specific (wrong in his opinion) steps that Hoover did take, so the idea that he was just "hoping" is contradicted by the source.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article Inauguration of Herbert Hoover is thin and is not likely to be expanded significantly. I propose merging it into this article. Any objections? -- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No objections to adding the one-paragraph article to this one. - Denimadept (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to do it, but I just noticed that there is an article for each Presidential inauguration, 65 in all. As thin as the Hoover inauguration article is, I would hate to mess that up. I am scrapping the idea. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Economy Section-NPOV

The article states, "Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility." To be fair, the article should also state that all modern critics agree that Roosevelt's policies did not work either, even though the government provided direct relief. The consensus is that the war got us out of the depression. Let's not leave our children with the wrong idea, OK? In the next paragraph is the incongruent quote from Tugwell. So, which is is, Hoover was a big failure, or he wrote the blueprint for Roosevelt's policies? This is resolved by pointing out that both men, with respect to the Economy, were failures because the similar policies they were pursuing did not work.Bill Eastland (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my impression that you are correct, although I have not read a great deal on the subject and so I cannot cite sources that say that. Have you? If so, please improve the article, correct the misleading information, and cite the sources. — JPMcGrath (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the impression of many more economists and historians that Roosevelt's "cold-feet" withdrawal fr/ Keynesian New Deal economics in 1937 caused and end to an ongoing, gradual recovery. The 2nd slump continued until Lend Lease. Tapered (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Presidency 1929–1933

Should Inauguration of Herbert Hoover be merged into this section?--Robert Treat (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See section two headings up. - Denimadept (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt-Hoover Interregnum

Removed anti-New-Deal POV to the effect that FDR deliberately sabotaged the US economy between the 1932 election and 1933 inauguration. Replaced it w/ explanation that FDR refused Hoover's attempt to continue his Admin's economic policies. Tapered (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Mexican Repatriation"

"In 1929, Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program to combat rampant unemployment, the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs. The program was largely a forced migration of approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico, and continued through to 1937."

Hoover did not issue any executive order, directive, proclamation or any other offical pronouncement authorizing or encouraging repatriation. Hoover's only official action on non-quota immigration (i.e. immigration from Canada and Latin America) was to tighten visa requirements to such an extent that virtually no one was admitted legally. See http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22344&st=&st1=

It is necessary to distinguish between deportation and repatriation. Deportation is a legal action by the Federal government, involving due process. One of the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924 then in force was that any illegal alien without a proper visa could be deported at any time. Essentially, the burden of proof was on the migrant to show a legal visa. Hoover's Labor Department (and Roosevelt's as well) did attempt to step up deportations, with limited results.

Repatriation was technically "voluntary" and was implemented by many different jusridictions. The specifics varied in different parts of the country, but the results were the same: illegal immigrants (from Mexico and other countries), legal migrants who had lost their papers, and even legal U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin were intimidated or coerced into leaving the country. In some cases migrants left "voluntarily" after being threatened or detained by local law enforcement or Bureau of Immigration officials, but many others left without any direct coercion, hoping to avoid prosecution or official deportation, which would have barred them from eventually returning to the U.S.

In some cases local or state governments, or even private organizations, would pay the transportation costs for the repatriates and coerce them to leave the country. The largest such repatriation project took place in Los Angeles, and was coordinated by Los Angeles city officials with cooperation from the Department of Labor and Los Angeles County officials. In 1930 and 1931, tens of thousands of Mexicans were rounded up and put on trains, often with their American-born children, and summarily shipped across the border. Los Angeles County estimated that the cost to send one trainload of 6,000 Mexicans back to Mexico was about $77,000, but if they had stayed, unemployment relief would have cost the County about $425,000 per year.

In total, perhaps ten times as many people may have left the country "voluntarily" during the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations, than were officially deported. However, since no official records were kept of the number of people who "voluntarily" left the country, exact numbers are not available.

In short, President Hoover considered such "repatriation projects" to be a local prerogative under the 1924 Immigration Act, and believed that the federal government's primary responsibility should be to enforce the laws regulating legal immigration. Hoover's Department of Labor often cooperated with, or even encouraged such "projects," but it was never official policy.

While repatriation certainly deserves to be discussed in concjunction with the Depression (perhaps in the main article on the Depression), I suggest that any mention of it in the Hoover article should note that repatriation was not an offical policy of the Hoover administration. 207.245.185.55 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

added positive actions Hoover took during the Depression

As a history (and philosophy) major, I understand the general public's lack of solid information regarding Herbert Hoover as I've read the standard HS and college textbooks too. However, since this site purports to be neutral and objective, I propose that the following POSITIVE actions he undertook as president (as opposed to the usual unfounded assertions that he did nothing).

If anyone objects to any single item, then we should discuss it. If anyone objects to the whole lot, then maybe we should consult the ample historical record on the matter. I would propose at least two non-partisan, "middle of the road" sources.

Here are two examples:

1) The Presidency of Herbert C. Hoover (American Presidency Series) by Martin L. Fausold

Having now just ordered this particular book, I am currently reading through the whole series and so far the authors have been reasonably objective and non-partisan. [At the moment, I'm reading the book on Van Buren along with Bray Hammond's Banks and Politics in America (From the Revolution to the Civil War).]

(Excellent book on Hoover. One of the top five. Finn-jd-john (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

2) Herbert Hoover by Eugene Lyons

(This book is really pretty awful. Lyons was an old friend of Hoover's and full of indignation at how he was being treated. Entertaining but really not very useful for a history buff. Finn-jd-john (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

So far I have only read one chapter of this thorough account of Hoover entitled “An Old-style Liberal.”

This chapter highlights just some of the reforms Hoover pressed for as a Cabinet member and as President: A Constitutional Amendment outlawing child labor, expanded collective bargaining for organized labor and tax increases for “property income” (rent, interest and dividends).

In the context of his times, Hoover was a slightly “left of center” reformer ultimately hated by his own party for daring to “level the playing field” in favor of the average American vs. the moneyed and industrial classes who likewise suffered the wrath of the “left” for his fervent denunciation of any form of collectivism.

The following is an outline of just some of the actions Hoover, often called ‘the forgotten progressive,’ took to end the Great Depression and alleviate the sufferings of the American people.

("The Forgotten Progressive" is a reference to Joan Hoff Wilson's book of the same name. Another member of the Top 5, mentioned above. Finn-jd-john (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

1) Signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the nation’s first Federal unemployment assistance.

2) Increased Public Works Spending – some of Hoover’s efforts to stimulate the economy through public works are as follows:

a) Asked congress for a $400 million increase in the Federal Building Program
b) Directed the Department of Commerce to establish a Division of Public Construction in December  1929.
c) Increased subsidies for ship construction through the Federal Shipping Board
d) Urged the state governors to also increase their public works spending though many failed to take any  action.

3) Signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act establishing the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home.

4) Increased subsidies to the nation’s struggling farmers.

5) Established the President’s Emergency Relief Organization to coordinate local, private relief efforts resulting in over 3,000 relief committees across the U.S.

6) Urged bankers to form the National Credit Corporation to assist banks in financial trouble and protect depositor’s money.

7) Actively encouraged businesses to maintain high wages during the depression. Many businessmen, most notably Henry Ford, raised or maintained their worker’s wages early in the depression in the hope that more money into the pockets of consumers would end the economic downturn.

8) Signed the Reconstruction Finance Act. This act established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which made loans to the states for public works and unemployment relief. In addition, the RFC made loans to banks, railroads and agriculture credit organizations.

9) Raised tariffs to protect American jobs. After hearings held by the House Ways and Means Committee generated over 20,000 pages of testimony regarding tariff protection, Congress responded with legislation that Hoover signed despite some misgivings. Instead of protecting American jobs, the Smoot-Hawley tariff is widely blamed for setting off a worldwide trade war which only worsened the country’s economic ills. This is a classic example of how government actions, despite good intentions, can trigger negative, unintended consequences.

In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised taxes on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange and this pressure resulted in various reforms.

Despite these actions and the massive intervention by his successor, FDR, the economy did not improve. A severe recession occurred in 1937-38 (a contraction labeled a depression by some economists) and the economy continued to struggle until the 1940’s (unemployment did not drop below 9.9% until 1942).

Notes: Hoover did not raise tariffs, the Congress did after deliberating for several months, Hoover just signed it. The deliberation of the tariffs caused the market crash. The world retaliated to the increased tariffs. Trying to recover the US economy, Hoover proposed to increase the personal income tax, which was passed by the Congress. The Great Depression was on its way...

changed positive actions Hoover took during the Depression

I've edited out some of what I thought where the more blatant examples of bias in this particular section. The opinions of a history major or not, it would be best to simply state the facts of what did or did not happen in relation to the economy and let the reader determine Hoover's intent for themselves.

The section sorely needs to be rewritten.

Hmm...the additions by the first anon are clearly rather POV. What we need is a) a summary of what exactly Hoover did; and b) some discussion of the historiography surrounding them. My understanding is that Hoover's actions as president are viewed more positively now than they once were, and this should be included in the article. Of course, American history isn't my field, so I'm open to correction on this. Would anyone else want to weigh in on this? john k 05:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed... regardless of what he did, the language used in summarization is very biased positively. Buoren 21:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hoover's economic policies were largely responsible for the Great Depression and the massive gap between rich and poor (and subsequent public demoralization) that led to it. Much of this article sounds like Republican historical revisionism trying to whitewash the disasters created by the policies of Hoover and his predecessors Harding and Coolidge. At this point, the bulk of the article is extremely biased, and misinformative... and perhaps because the same deluded 'conservative trend' dominating American politics is guided by the same deceptive, oligarchic ideology. Hoover (and apparently his political descendants as well) was a master of deceptive political propaganda, and was widely despised as a politician by the time of his defeat in 1932.... he needed no help from Roosevelt to be unpopular. In fact, Roosevelt, being the humanitarian he was, gave Hoover a special post in his administration to compensate for Hoover's humiliating failures.

huh? Roosevelt hated Hoover. While president, Hoover (deliberately? Roosevelt thought so) humiliated him by keeping him waiting on his feet and receiving him covered in sweat. The offense was never forgiven. Roosevelt would have sooner given Madame Chiang-Kai Shek a post. Also, although I agree with your assessment of Harding and Coolidge, Hoover had just a few months in office before the wheels fell off. I'm sorry but this sounds like the left-wing twin of exactly the right-wing misinformation you're complaining about. Finn-jd-john (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Article remains very much POV oriented. The "outline of other actions" especially, is repetitive, biased, and includes actions that took place after Hoover's administration. Recommend the "outline" section be removed, and the remaining copy rewritten. 404notfound1 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

The section on the 1928 election incorrectly says that anti-Catholicism was politically unacceptable. In reality, anti-Catholicism was generally acceptable in mainstream politics. The Klan enrolled about 4 million members in 1926--about 15% of the eligible population of white male Protestants. That's just one example among many. I'll leave this section for a little bit and see if there are other comments, and then change it to reflect reality. 69.246.216.233 (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

there were near zero public figures who were anti-Catholic (and not one said he was a member of the KKK). When people deny something, it either does not exist or was politically unacceptable, so the statement is correct. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hoover did not follow Mellon's 'trickle down economics'

Two main schools of thought clashed in Hoover's Cabinet. Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury led minority view (but reflected the current majority view in society) often referred to as 'Social Darwinist.' Also known as the liquidationist school, Mellon advised Hoover to "let things run their course." A purge of the financial system will chastise the Wall Street speculators he despised and the economy would eventually recover as it had in times past (he used the 1870s as an example).

The interventionist school, typified and led by Hoover himself thought that government should act to "cushion the blows" of the failing economy. Not only did Hoover think that government action could help but he argued that action must be taken to keep fascism and socialism from taking over and infecting the country.

All of this is documented by Eugene Lyons on pages 245 ff in his biography of Herbert Hoover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Openmind (talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 June 2004 (UTC)

Gap in article

Why is there a large gap in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue387 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 July 2004 (UTC)

Copied text?

I don't know which way the information flowed, but the last paragraph of the Wiki and the last paragraph of the official White House biography are nearly identical. Remember: even if you cite a work, if you directly quote from the work without using quotation marks to show the words are not your own, it's still plagarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.79.40 (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2004 (UTC)

Mellon's influence

The article implies that Mellon was responsible for the Great Depression. There are some questions about who had more influence on Hoover, Mellon or Ogden Mills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.120.140 (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Post Presidency Action, 1940 Presidential Convention

I'm fairly new to Wiki editing, and hadn't figured out how to cite a book whose pages aren't online. The book which quotes the Drew Pearson and Robert Allen's Washington Merry-Go-Round concerning Hoover's 1940 actions at the primary and the sentiment he was expressing to other Republican leaders concerning Hitler's inevitable victory and how America must pick a leader willing to do business with Hitler, and who hadn't alienated him, is the 2005 book by Charles Peters, "Five Days in Philadelphia: The Amazing 'We Want Willkie!' Convention of 1940 and How It Freed FDR To Save the Western World." Articles are quoted in adjacent pages of the book about Hoover's non-straightforward attempts to seek the nomination (as I stated, on the supposition that there would be many ballots with a four candidate race, and that it might get thrown to a non-declared candidate in effort to bring the convention to a close).

By the way, 1940 was the last real convention — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hoover, policy with a tagline of "real jobs for real americans"

So one day I was listening to NPR and I heard a show talking about, I believe, Hoover's presidency. It mentioned him making a policy with the tagline of "real jobs for real Americans" under which hundreds of Americans of Mexican or Latino, descent were sent back to their homelands. Now many of the people sent home were 3rd or 4th generation families with no known family in their homelands. They were sent away due to the lack of jobs, and the number of jobs held by these so called mexican americans. I am trying to find some information on this, does anyone know anything? Also I am not positive that it was Hoover, it might have been another president. Thanks much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamihilion (talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

herbert hoover----debate

if anyone has done reasearch about Herbert Hoover, please tell me: Do you think he was a good president or a bad president? Why?

Im doing a project about him soi would like your opinions!!

Thanks!

Reseacher96 —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

Parents...............?

Hello. Does anybody happen to know who his parents were? It's for my research project.

TY!

Reseacher96 —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

World War II with Hoover

I just learned that during Hoover's presidency that there was NO WAR AT ALL. Meaning that world War Two could not have been in process while Hoover was president...

Reseacher96 —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

It depends on how you define World War II....Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931.Ericl (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoover was a Quaker, although not a particularly observant one, and it's entirely possible (although utterly unprovable) that the Quaker commitment to peace was the real reason he got out of the lead-mining business when World War I broke out (thus freeing himself up for the humanitarian activities that made him famous and enabled him to become President). It's pretty hard to imagine Hoover getting into a war. In that sense, we're probably lucky he wasn't president in 1941 ... we might all be speaking German today! Finn-jd-john (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Jessie Hoover

The amount of useful information in Jessie Hoover is little enough that it could be comfortably integrated into this article. Thoughts? Skomorokh 12:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the merger should go through. It has been almost 3 months without discussion and I just happened to stumble upon the article myself.--RifeIdeas Talk 12:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge it. Jessie Hoover is of no significance save that he is the father of Herbert. How does this work now? 6 months on from the original suggestion, who actually does the merging? asnac (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Herbert Hoover Publication

A book written by Herbert Hoover was recently published (November 2011). Its called Freedom Betrayed. The article should cover this new book. I don't know a thing about editing these wiki articles and am apparently too lazy to learn. Just bringing attention to the book in case an editor wishes to cover it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.114.177 (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Herbert Hoover article; Draft edit to the Herbert Hoover article, under the section headed "Mining Engineer"

I have an image of a young Herbert Hoover taken in 1898 in Perth, Western Australia and I would appreciate help from anyone on how to insert it into the "Mining Engineer" area of the wiki bio. I can see from the scripting that the other photos are merely "wikilinks" to another wiki page with the image file on it. However I would appreciate help regarding creating this original image file page, and how to insert all the info required, including the citation for the photo etc. Is there a wiki help link that someone can point me to please? Jlyster (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC) regards

Depending on the photograph's copyright status you have three options: upload to Wikipedia itself; upload to Commons (which is a central free media repository for all Wikimedia Foundation projects); or possibly not upload at all!

If you definitely know that it's completely unencumbered by any form of copyright, and can prove that, then Commons would be best. If it has some restrictions then Wikipedia may be better but you'll need to see WP:NONFREE for more details about what non-free content we accept and under what circumstances.

To upload to Commons you'll need an account there—one easy way to set that up is to activate your Wikipedia account across all WMF projects. See WP:SUL for more information.

To upload to Wikipedia, if you click the "Toolbox" link on the left side of the screen one of the choices that will appear will be "Upload file". From there it's a matter of following the instructions. Choosing an appropriate license is the most important bit, and will obviously depend on the the license of the source photograph. See WP:UPI for more details.

Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 10:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jlyster (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC) OK I have only just noticed this edit and I thank you for this however will have to review later. Basically the image is sourced from the State Library of Western Australia. They have said that I can purchase the full image for $25 including what they called a "Reproduction Permit". I gather this is not the sort of copyright license that you refer to above. However the image is from 1898, so wouldn't this somehow be in the public domain now? Does it still require the full copyright license? Alternatively I have downloaded a 23KB thumbnail of this image. Wouldn't this be acceptable to upload under the "fair use" rules? Now if I did purchase the full version, is the "Publication Permit" acceptable? Does it matter? If so, must I still organise the full copyright license? They have already emailed me indicating that it is OK to upload so long as I "acknowledge the source". I have just had a brief look at the upload page and am a little confused by the appearance of a required license still......even if the image probably doesn't require one???? JL

Edit to Herbert Hoover article; Draft edit to the Herbert Hoover article, under the section headed "Mining Engineer"

Jlyster (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hoover went to Australia in 1897 as an employee of Bewick, Moreing & Co., a London-based mining company. Hoover first went to Coolgardie, the-then, center of the Western Australian goldfields, where he worked under Edward Hooper, a company partner. Conditions were harsh as these goldfields were centered in the Great Victoria Desert and Hoover described the region as a land of "black flies, red dust, and white heat." He served as a geologist and mining engineer while searching the Western Australian goldfields for investments. After being appointed as mine manager at the age of 23, he led a major program of expansion for the Sons of Gwalia gold mine at Gwalia, Western Australia, and brought in many Italian immigrants to cut costs and counter the union militancy of the Australian miners.[5][6] He believed "the rivalry between the Italians and the other men was of no small benefit."[5] He also described Italians as "fully 20 per cent superior"[5] to other miners.

Hoover worked at gold mines in Big Bell, Cue, Leonora, Menzies and Coolgardie, Western Australia. [7][8] It was during his time in Western Australia, 1897-98, that Hoover first met Mr. Fleury James Lyster.

Hoover married his Stanford sweetheart, Lou Henry, in 1899. The Hoovers had two sons, Herbert Clark Hoover Jr. (1903–1969) and Allan Henry Hoover (1907–1993). The family went to China, where Hoover worked for Bewick, Moreing & Co. as the company's lead engineer. Hoover and his wife learned Mandarin Chinese while he worked in China and used it during his tenure at the White House when they wanted to foil eavesdroppers.[9] The Boxer Rebellion trapped the Hoovers in Tianjin in June 1900. For almost a month, the settlement was under fire. Hoover himself guided U.S. Marines around Tianjin during the battle, using his knowledge of the local terrain.[10]

Hoover was made a partner in Bewick, Moreing & Co. in 1901 and assumed responsibility for various Australian operations and investments. The company would eventually control approximately 50% of gold production in Western Australia. By now, Hoover was no longer living in Australia, instead he visited the country in 1902, 1903, 1905 and 1907 as an overseas investor. In August–September 1905, he founded the Zinc Corporation (later, following various mergers, to become Consolidated Zinc and then a part of the Rio Tinto Group) with William Baillieu and others, with the intention to purchase and treat the zinc rich tailings in Broken Hill, New South Wales. Known as "the Sulphide Problem", it had been noticed that considerable zinc in the lead-silver could not be recovered and was lost as tailings. Initially, Broken Hill mining companies mostly extracted the silver by crushing and gravitation methods by the turn of the century. Hydro-metallurgical and magnetic separation methods were also tried, but the main breakthrough came in 1902 when Delprat and Potter independently devised processes that would eventually be patented as the Delprat-Potter method. This was a part of the overall effort being made in Broken Hill to devise a practical and profitable method to use the newly developed froth flotation process to treat these tailings and recover the zinc.[11] Flotation, an important mineral separation process, was pioneered in Broken Hill and numerous efforts were being made in various locations around the world to refine this process. The Delprat-Potter process became the main method used in various companies in Broken Hill up until 1912, however Hoover's investment in Zinc Corporation struggled to gain success using this process. As a director, Hoover was responsible for achieving a successful method in order to ensure the survival of the company. It was at the time of Hoover's 1907 Australian visit that Fluery James Lyster relocated from Hoover's original location in the Western Australian goldmines to Broken Hill and began his experiments which resulted in the "Lyster process". This enabled the Zinc Corporation to operate the world's first Selective or Differential Flotation plant by September, 1912. The Minerals Separation, Limited entity was able to secure the rights to the proceeds of these developments for the investors when Lyster signed US patents in 1916 and 1921. Working with his brother, Theodore J. Hoover through the UK based Minerals Separation Ltd., and his own company, Hoover was supplying the world's industries, such as steel, with the needed base minerals, including Zinc. Hoover left Bewick Moreing & Co by 1908 and, setting out on his own, eventually ended up with investments on every continent and offices in San Francisco, London, New York City, St. Petersburg, Paris and Mandalay, Burma. He had his second majorly successful venture with the British firm Burma Corporation, again producing silver, lead and Zinc in large quantities at the Namtu Bawdwin Mine, where he caught malaria in 1907. By 1914, Hoover was an extremely wealthy man, with an estimated personal fortune of $4m. He was once quoted as saying "If a man has not made a million dollars by the time he is forty, he is not worth much". Sixty-six years after opening the mine in 1897, Hoover still had a partial share in the Sons of Gwalia mines when it finally closed in 1963, just one year before the former President's death in New York City in 1964. The successful mine had yielded $55m in gold and $10m in dividends for investors. Herbert Hoover, acting as a main investor, financier, mining speculator and organiser of men, played a major role in the important metallurgical developments that occured in Broken Hill in the first decade of the twentieth century, developments that had a great impact on the world mining and production of silver, lead and zinc.
Jlyster (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

better start with George Nash's major biography that covers all this. Please avoid original research into primary documents--rely on Nash for that. Drop patent numbers. The Lyons book is no longer a RS. Yergin and McNeill are dubious sources on Hoover. Try not to string more than 2 notes in a row. Use American spelling not British....and good luck! Rjensen

Hi Jlyster - this is a great first effort at writing Wikipedia content :) I can't comment on Rjensen's advice regarding the Lyons book because I simply don't know enough about it, but it seems to me you have the foundation of a decent content addition to the article. I agree that we need to be careful referencing primary sources, but we can use them in some circumstances (see WP:PRIMARY). I'm assuming that the primary sources here are the patents?

As Rjensen says there are some stylistic conventions that will need tweaking but that's easy enough to do. Do you mind if I go ahead and do that?

Rjensen's other point, which is probably worth addressing now, is the list of citations. I appreciate that the content is a distillation of all those sources, but for certain pieces of information—statistics, direct quotations, and anything likely to be challenged—we prefer citations on a per sentence basis. Obviously you know best which citations belong with which sentences so you'd be the ideal person to do that (but as I said, only for information of the type I've described; see Wikipedia:CITE#When and why to cite sources). Remaining cites can stay at the end. EyeSerene^talk 10:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed some refs according to Rjensen advice and yes go ahead with your "stylistic convention tweaks" please. Please let me know what exactly you do here, just for me to learn thx. I'm not an academic researcher so I must admit to being confused by what is a primary source. I left the notation "US Patents" in place whilst removing the patent numbers. Feel free to remove this if you deem fit to. What are the other primary sources that I should remove please? Hmm about the order of citations???? Now I'm all confused, I'll see what I can do. I really just read up on stuff over time and wrote down my essay off my head while keeping the sources there in a general way as you can see. Going through and finding specifics is a bit hard just now. JL Jlyster (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've been through and "wikified" the paragraph (mainly removing bold formatting which we only use in very specific places in articles, and removing some unnecessary internal links). I've also added {{fact}} tags to some sentences which are those that in my opinion could do with a specific citation. So called "fact bombing" is considered slightly impolite on Wikipedia, so I hope you'll forgive my presumption, but in the light of your previous post I felt it might help you with targeting your efforts on those lines. EyeSerene^talk 18:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That's OK..............at this stage it is all a learning curve for me so go for it. I've seen these "curved brackets" (??) So these are templates? Yes, I'm seeing more things............more of the wiki systems. I'm not a computer person so even all this scripting is new to me, however there seems to be a certain logic to it all. Did I see something about {reflist} somewhere?????? Jlyster (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you're doing extremely well in picking this up so quickly. You're right, anything enclosed in double curly brackets is a template. You don't need to worry about the reflist one though, because your refs in the above paragraph will automatically be added to the existing reflist at the end of the main article when the text is moved across. Thank you for citing those sentences I marked - I think we're fast approaching the point where we can add your content to the article. Is there anything else (apart from the image!) that you think needs doing? EyeSerene^talk 12:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Jlyster (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Footnote format

The ANU cites need work: The should look like this:
Fairweather, D. F., 'Lyster, Fleury James (Jim) (1872–1948)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lyster-fleury-james-jim-10883/text19323, accessed 18 February 2012.
put all that inside this footnote form: <ref> ...put stuff here...</ref> Rjensen (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx for this Rjensen.....it is late here now so off to bed.............I'll come back to work on these references tomorrow. I'll also see about getting the references to be a little more specific to the text if I can....cheers JL Jlyster (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, I notice that you have the URL for Lyster with the suffix "/text19323". This web page link works just as well with and without this............unless there is something I missed.......is there any reason for this add on please? Jlyster (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

pls disregard the last question as I just saws the reason thx Jlyster (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Presidents who redistributed their pay?

" (Hoover) was the first of two Presidents to redistribute their salary (President Kennedy was the other; he donated all his paychecks to charity)"

FDR was second; he also donated his entire pay to charity, his family was wealthy.68.98.46.229 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hoover's book Freedom Betrayed

Still no mention of this historically important book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.114.177 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC) There was a reason it was suppressed for half a centuryEricl (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Image Cleanup per MOS:IMAGES

I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding per MOS:IMAGES:

File:Jesse Hoover blacksmith shop.jpg|right|thumb|Reconstructed Jesse Hoover's blacksmith shop in West Branch, Iowa

I have removed the image of Hoover's memorial postage. Consensus has been reached in other U.S. Presidents' articles that this information lacks sufficient significance per MOS - see articles/talk p. on Kennedy, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt for consensus. A link is provided to provide the reader with adequate referral to the postage information.

I have substituted another image of Lou Henry and could not find a spot for her White House Photo following. File:L_Hoover_WH_Portrait.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Lou Henry Hoover Hoppyh (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Separation from Stanford sweetheart, Lou Henry

The text (in "Australia") says, "contemplating a separation from", which has nearly an opposite meaning from the probable intent, "contemplating the separation from", given the next sentence which states that Hoover proposed via telegram to the lady in question.

(I would simply edit this directly if the issue were 100% clear, but it seems more subtle than a mere typo.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koan911 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

removed picture

Dear Sir or Madam,

iam a family relative of Herbert Hoover, i removed the picture showing children suffering from starvation. It is not neccessary showing two living children in such a position as it is shown in that article. It is disrespectful for any family relatives of those as well as not adequate for a Wikipedia article to which also children have access too. That starvation is far away from being shown anyway in an acceptable form can be expected but before any of such pictures are taken for this purpose is it better to refrain from using them entirely. Thank you for the occupation of your time. yours sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.21 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the picture is unnecessary, but I'm not reverting you only because of that, not because of your other reasons. No one owns articles on Wikipedia. See WP:OWN for details. Therefore, you are not addressing a single individual, but a group of them, who work on this article. I don't think others will revert you either, but I could be wrong. Your purported ancestry doesn't enter into it. - Denimadept (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Article needs basic composition work

It's not bad...and there is a ton of great referenced info. But also, several places where the chronological structure is messed up (without need) or where topic sentences could make the flow more understandable. Also a few mega paragraphs that need breaking. The layout of images could use work as well.TCO (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

P.s. who owns this article?

P.S. No one. See WP:OWN. - Denimadept (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone proof read the section Later Years and death. This needs a major rewrite. It makes no sense. A statement made in one sentence is negated 2 sentences later. I tried cleaning it up but could not follow what was trying to be conveyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.18.173.101 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In office until... 2013?

This article says that Hoover was in office until 2013, fifty years after his death. I'm not an expert in American History, but I think that is a biiig error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.13.174 (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. The vandal has been reverted. - Denimadept (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote attributed to Rexford Tugwell

I removed the quote ascribed to Rexford Tugwell, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started." The earliest citation for this quote Is Paul Johnson's A History of the American People. Tugwell actually loathed Hoover and his policies. See "Make America Over" by Steven Chichester (a master's thesis from Liberty University) for Tugwell's actual views on Hoover. JHobson3 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream views of Hoover

The description of Hoover's handling of the Great Depression seems to be completely hijacked by minority influences - it simply states at the beginning that the public opinion is not true, and only cites Murray Rothbard as disagreeing with him. Wouldn't it make more sense as a wikipedia article to first outline the overwhelming public opinion of him and the evidence for it, and then discuss people who disagree and their evidence? The following passage does not belong near the beginning of the section:

Although many people at the time and for decades afterwards denounced Hoover for taking a hands-off ("laissez-faire") approach to the Depression,[122] he actually pursued an activist policy. Hoover said he rejected Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's suggested "leave-it-alone" approach,[123] and called many business leaders to Washington to urge them not to lay off workers or cut wages.[124]

Also, even saying that Hoover pursued an activist policy without a direct citation is kind of contrary to the spirit of wikipedia articles. 23:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.244.101 (talk)

Agreed. I have a couple other projects to finish up first, and then I plan to address this. Orser67 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Historical views? Later views of his Presidential legacy?

Shouldn't there be a section like this? Also, the section that mentioned All in the Family did not mention the song with his name in it from Annie. Geekdiva (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good if there were such a section. Orser67 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarify, please

During his time at Gwalia, Hoover first met Fleury James Lyster, a pioneering metallurgist... An open feud developed between Hoover and his boss Ernest Williams, with Hoover persuading four other mine managers to conspire against his rival.

Lyster is mentioned with two references that tell us nothing about his relationship with Hoover. And we can't tell whether the 'rival' is Lyster or Williams. Valetude (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I note that Lyster is now mentioned just once, in this sentence that seems not to relate to anything before or after: During his time at Gwalia, Hoover first met Fleury James Lyster, a pioneering metallurgist. And Lyster is apparently not notable enough to merit his own wiki page. At this rate, why is he mentioned at all? Valetude (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

first of his office born in that state

Full sentence: Herbert Hoover was born on August 10, 1874, in West Branch, Iowa, the first of his office born in that state and west of the Mississippi River.

Should this state "first of his family" or is it an antiquated/rare use of English where context would be useful? I honestly have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9802:A1B0:2C6D:F3A4:3BEE:AF8D (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it means the first President. Valetude (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Herbert Hoover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112121337/http://www.gwalia.org.au/historicpics.html to http://www.gwalia.org.au/historicpics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913094418/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/6883 to http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/6883
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060311034839/http://www.terry.uga.edu/~selgin/files/check_tax.pdf to http://www.terry.uga.edu/~selgin/files/check_tax.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414103548/http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/webarticles/080103_marshallplan.html to http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/webarticles/080103_marshallplan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101224506/http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives/exhibits/27245 to http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives/exhibits/27245
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217233238/http://www.ecommcode.com/hoover/ebooks/pdf/FULL/B1V3_Full.pdf to http://www.ecommcode.com/hoover/ebooks/pdf/FULL/B1V3_Full.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead Section

This is biased in this article and that of Presidents Bush and Harding lead sections are mentioned how they were among the worst Presidents yet on Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter articles have no mentions on their lead sections.I say only present the facts and not opinions for both Conservative and Liberal Presidents lead sections let's take a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, so you just want Democrats to look bad too. Anyway, I suggest you see Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Notable_scholar_surveys. You'll see there that LBJ is ranked 12th and Carter 27th. Neither of those would put them among the worst. And just to show you this isn't a Republican vs. Dem thing, note Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Lincoln -- all Republicans -- are described as among the greatest presidents in their lead sections. Calidum 19:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No I'm not biased I only want facts presented in a President lead section not some historian opinion no matter how honest he or she maybe it's still just their opinion this is Wikipedia not Youtube only facts should be shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)