Talk:Roosevelt family/Archives/2012

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Roosevelt family tree → Roosevelt family … Rationale: The more general article title is blocked by a redirect page. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support--Aldux 00:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

SupportSam 01:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support JdH 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Consonant with Bush family, Kennedy family, Du Pont family. --Dhartung | Talk 17:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

If this is to become a general article about the Roosevelt family, then the table should be extended to show Teddy's children. Adam 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Result: page moved. Eugène van der Pijll 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claes Von Roosevelt...

I read that Claes Von Roosevelt original name was Claes Von Rosenvelt. This was interesting. Is this true? Is this link legitimate? Can someone please explain?

http://www.nps.gov/elro/who-is-er/q-and-a/q6.htm

Thanks. 71.131.219.6 03:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In 17th century Holland people were not very fussy about the precise spelling of names. The Dutch Oud-Vossemeer site gives a summary of the Dutch family van Rosevelt (Works in Progress). Different spellings of that name do occur in old documents, such as van 't Rosevelt.
They suggest that the name originated from a farmhouse that was located near Oud-Vossemeer called "Het Rosevelt" (=The field of Roses, probably after the poppies (= "klaprozen" in Dutch) that are quite common in the region). So "van 't Rosevelt" would mean "From Het Rosevelt"; i.e.: a person who came originally from the farm "Het Rosevelt".
However, no direct link between the Dutch van Rosevelt family and the American Roosevelts has been established, and it is unlikely that it ever will, since the old-archives of Zeeland province (located in Middelburg) was destroyed in the Battle of the Scheldt during World War II. JdH 07:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading back what I just wrote I started to wonder why 71.131.219.6 was so interested in that "n". As I mentioned, to the 17th century Dutch that "n" was immaterial: Roosevelt, Rosevelt, Rosenvelt with or without "van" are used interchangebly.
So why would 71.131.219.6 think that that "n" may be important while to the 17th century Dutch it didn't matter one little bit? Google provides the answer to that question: see Stalin,Roosevelt,Eisenhower biographies. That site states that "The first Roosevelt came to America in 1649. His name was Claes Rosenfelt. He was a Jew." This site contains what appears to be Neo-nazi propaganda, and the fact that I cite it in no way means that I underwrite any of that propaganda. I am not suggesting that 71.131.219.6 underwrites it either.
Here is what Franklin Roosevelt said about a possible connection between the Roosevelt family and the Jewish Rosenfelt's: "Where he (=Claes) came from in Holland I do not know, nor do I know who his parents were. . . . In the dim distant past they rnay have been Jews or Catholics or Protestants -what I am more interested in is whether they were good citizens and believers in God; I hope they were both." JdH 15:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious from that quote that (a) FDR had no idea whether Claes was Jewish and (b) he didn't care. There is no evidence whatever that Claes was Jewish. This is an ancient Republican slander based on nothing but the fact that Roosevelt sounds a bit like Rosenfeld, the German form which is a common Jewish name. The only other thing to say is that FDR's mother was something of an anti-Semite and wouldn't have married a Roosevelt if she thought they were Jewish. Adam 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also: Rosenfeld, Rosenberg and other rosey surnames are German in origin, and just happened to get picked up in large numbers by Ashkenazim. E.g. notorious anti-Jew Alfred Rosenberg wasn't Jewish, nor did anyone in Germany at the time saw any reason to suspect he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.54.12.107 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt family tree

> Based on the family tree shown in the article, one would conclude that TR and FDR are 5th cousins, and Franklin and Eleanor are 5th cousins once removed. I changed the text of the article to reflect this, and is consistent with the text in the FDR article.
> Also, why do we show the children of FDR but not the children of TR? Alice is at least as famous as any of FDR's children. NoSeptember 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

> The family tree should be noted as incomplete, since it is limited to but two branches of the family, omitting members such as Nicholas Roosevelt, uncle of TR, noted in his own right.

Merging Roosevelt coat of arms

It has been suggested that the article Roosevelt Coat of Arms be merged with Roosevelt family. Actually, the page Roosevelt Coat of Arms was a poor name to give the article as it was created by moving existing information that included the Dutch origins, spelling variations and so on as well, and should be renamed Roosevelt family to better reflect the information within. Also to note, the vote stood at (1) delete, (1) merge, (1) rename and (1) to either merge or rename. So the merger is far from a consensus.

The idea of two articles like these standing alone is not new, and actually is similar to Kennedy family and Kennedy (surname), or O'Neill dynasty and O'Neill (surname). But in addition to those precedents, a Roosevelt (surname) page would also follow a plethora of other name articles found at Category:Surnames, which actually lists pages for names far less notable than Roosevelt. So this is not a radically new idea to have a Roosevelt (surname article, but follows the model set by thousands that came before it.

Also, as for Roosevelt family, that page should be confined to discussing the American political family, not origins of the name, spelling variations, Dutch practices and coats of arms. Merging all of that name information into the political family's page would be an odd choice given they are two separate and distinct subjects. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Do it. Make the merge Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so others are clear on this: Xanderliptak was actually the one who lumped all the heraldry, which was already in multiple articles, and placed it into those surname lists. Xanderliptak also insisted that his full name appear in the captions of his uploaded images of these arms; and now he even has his full name actually inside these images. So it's a "Alexander Liptak" double-whammy. See: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Watermarks, credits, and distortions and Wikipedia:Captions#Credits. Credits aren't supposed to appear inside uploaded images, nor are they supposed to go in the captions.

I think the name stuff should go into a surname article; but the heraldry stuff should stay here, since it is family members who have the coats of arms. It's not like this article is in dire need of daughtering off sections, it only has five paragraphs (two of which are on heraldry). I wonder if we even have articles on Roosevelts who aren't part of this family? Maybe every Roosevelt on Wikipedia is already listed within this article. If so, would we really need a duplicate 'surname article'?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Any arguments with the images are irrelevant to the article. I am not insisting my images stay up, just that the article does, which is not unreasonable given that there are well over a thousand other surname pages that exist with little more than two sentences. What I do not understand is how an article that I have sourced and written a few paragraphs on does not meet policy standards, but that those articles that are near blank and unsourced somehow warrant keeping. Or why a surname does not deserve an article because there are famous people of that name-if anything, that is actually a reason to have an article giving information on the name.

Coats of arms on a surname page seem logical given that they are inherited and pass down the same line as a surname does. They are inevitably connected. I would also like to keep coat of arms information on surname pages is because of the misconceptions about heraldry. People think wrongly that they can google “Smith coat of arms” and the image that comes up is theirs. Perhaps I was mislead, but I thought the whole purpose of Wikipedia was to expand knowledge and understanding. That is what I am attempting to do for the heraldic niche. If Wikipedia is held as a reputable source by the public, then there is a chance that they will come to Wikipedia at some point when researching their surname and a coat of arms. I would like it to be readily available, and that it be correct.

If you want to still argue against the images, then do that. Deleting an article solely because you have issue with an image in it seems extreme. I am new to Wikipedia, so my apologies on not knowing in detail all of Wikipedias policies. I am more familiar with MLA citation that requires all images to be credited by a caption. Any reference to my name as the painter of the painting I painted can now be removed. I was also unaware that the artist was not allowed to put a sign on his work, or is there only a ban on electronic signatures? Anyways, it is not a watermark, and does not "hamper the use of the image" to have an electronic signature.[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Heritable items (if notable) passed down through a family, should probably appear inside that family's article. Notable or interesting personal possessions, like coats of arms, should probably appear in that person's biography. This seems like common sense and it is also how we've got the Roosevelt stuff already presented. If you are concerned about certain misconceptions, or the finer points on Dutch heraldry then maybe we should make note of them and show a wiki-link to where these things are discussed (at Heraldry or Dutch heraldry). But, there is no need to re-hash the same technical information and images over and over again. If it is true that only notable Roosevelts are members of this family, and that these people already appear within this list, then i don't think we need another article to list them all over again. And note that the decision was to merge, so no worries, the Roosevelt heraldic info and your precious artwork is not going to be deleted; pretty much all of it is located in the appropriate articles already.

Three days ago you proposed to merge Name of Montreal into Montreal, with the following reasoning: There is no need for an article on the name of Montreal. This is already covered in the Montreal article, and any information about past names of the city, if not already included, should also be included in the Montreal article. A whole article to explain Montreal comes from 'mont' and 'real' is absurdly excessive. I agree.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So, shall you be making an effort to delete or merge all other surname articles?

As for Montreal, there is the main article that discusses the history including the names, and an article that discusses the names through history. That is different from an article that discusses a particular family and article that discusses a surname-like deleting the broader dog article because there is a German shepherd or Golden retriever article. If you want to delete anything with slight repetition, than why does this page even exist? If a surname does not have notability simply because the infamous or famous carry the name (an odd argument because that is how every surname has gained notability), then a family should not recieve notability simply because a few of its members were famous or infamous with that same logic.

There are two Roosevelt families that are notable in history, the American family descended from Claes Maartenszen van Rosenvelt and the Van Rosevelts of Oud-Vossemeer. This article even mentioned the latter family, and I thought it would be more appropriate to expand on them elsewhere, being that this is not their article and the connection between the two families seems forever evasive. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on man. Not one thing is being deleted. What you want to do is re-hash the same stuff under the guise of a surname article. If you want to create an article which is actually about a surname, go for it. I'll help. But note the key word there is surname. You've personally added your full name into 18 articles and 5 images, contrary to guidelines. Do you really need to add it into another? Let it go, man. When User:Purplebackpack89 proposed to delete Roosevelt Coat of Arms it had one sentence mentioning the surname; the rest of it was the exact same stuff found in multiple articles (and still found in multiple articles!). And of course, it also prominently had your image and full name in the caption. So in an attempt to save your article you then you added picture of a rose, took your name out of a caption, and added spelling variations to mask it as article about a surname. But now as i type this, we've got an even better coverage of the family's heraldry right here in the family article. So what is the problem man? Is this about improving heraldry on wikipedia, or plastering "Alexander Liptak" in as many different articles as possible?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you. That "better coverage" is my editing. :-) I finished my editing of the Coat of arms of Montreal and Coat of arms of Victoria pages, and was able to begin expanding the other articles I tinkered in. I work slow. So, in that aspect, I am sorry that I did not rush to immediately expand the Roosevelt Coat of Arms page that I did not create and was not expecting to be required to expand it on other people's schedules. So, yes, there was only one sentence on the origin and a couple alternate spellings, then a few paragraphs on the heraldry. I was busy with other articles at the time, and I did not know how to change an article's name yet, so I thought I would come back to it all later. Oh, and I am sorry that I have a greater interest in heraldry and that is where I tend to begin. Also, I apologize for being unfamiliar with all of Wikipedia's policies, I am new to this site. I was operating under normal citation rules when writing my name in the captions, I did not know there was a separate policy for Wikipedia. I am simply more familiar with print sources. Actually, if you took the time to go to the articles to count where I still have my name in the caption, why did you not just remove it?

Let me see if I can point this out clearer. Nothing is being deleted, and I understand that. Actually, my painting was added to the Roosevelt family article because it was merged from the other. If all I was doing was trying to get my image on another’s page, that has occurred. So, why would I argue that it be removed from here and put on a surname page? Maybe, and just maybe, it is because I actually think a surname page would be more appropriate. Everyone agrees the name is prominent. Everyone is aware other surname pages exist. Anyone that bothered checking them sees that they include usually one sentence. So, after pointing that all out, I get back in response, "I don't like the picture, delete everything." Can you not see my frustration?

As for repetition, yes, there will logically be some. The entire Roosevelt family used the same coat of arms, and there are not many new ways to describe the exact same thing uniquely for every single Roosevelt member. Both Theodor and Franklin Roosevelt loved their coat of arms, and the sections go on to mention how each individual used them in their own personal way. Being the exact same arms means that, yes, describing what they look like are going to sound exactly the same, but their uses differ and that is noted in the articles.

This article now contains the origins of the surname, the other prominent Van Rosevelt family of Zeeland which may or may not be related, the history of that second family, and the coats of arms of both families. All of that seems more appropriately placed in a surname article to me. While the Roosevelt family extends back to Claes and further back still, surely you will agree that it is because of the political members of the family in the last couple centuries that warranted this page, and so should focus on that aspect of this political family. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what more to say. If you really think that this other family is notable, then maybe you could work on an article for it or something. Then the article discussing the surname can link to both family pages, and within these family pages viewers will be able to get the low down on each family. Anyways, we might as well start the surname page: Roosevelt (surname).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How does it look with the current setup? The Roosevelt family is now a list of the family members acting pretty much like a disambiguation page and family tree, and the Roosevelt (surname) page now includes the name origins and a brief early history of the two prominent families. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So much for consensus building.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was that the information did not belong on a coat of arms page, which I agreed. So, now that there is a more appropriate surname article, I was wanting the opinions on the new page. I believe a surname page would be amiss to ignore prominent carriers of the name, let alone prominent families. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I contributed the better part of the family tree list of Roosevelts on Roosevelt family and created 14 articles on members of the American Roosevelt family.)The proper purpose for a Roosevelt (surname) page or a Kennedy (surname) page is as a disambiguation page for people with that surname - an alphabetical list of those people. The existence of such pages is not an assertion of the notability of those surnames. For example, the page Johnston (surname) is a random one I looked up; the name Johnston is not particularly notable except for being common. That does not mean that the history of the name can't be discussed, but it should be kept general.

The Roosevelt (surname) page as it exists now does not serve this purpose and I think the coat of arms content should be merged back into Roosevelt family, and an alphabetical list of all people with the surname, whether they are members of the American political family or not, added to Roosevelt (surname).

The article Roosevelt (surname) should not discuss the Dutch Van Rosevelts of Oud-Vossemeer, considering that that is not their surname, and furthermore, there is no known link to the American Roosevelts who actually do have that surname. Currently, Roosevelt (surname) consists of a general discussion of Dutch place name orthography too detailed and irrelevant for the article, the statistics section which would perhaps be useful to keep if the page were just a list of people with the surname, a section on the Dutch Van Rosevelts who don't even have the Roosevelt surname and have no known connection to it, a section on the Roosevelt family which contains nothing that couldn't be/isn't in Roosevelt family, and a section on coats of arms which itself states It is a common misconception that there is one coat of arms associated to everyone of a common surname. Now why are we including all this stuff about two coats of arms which are associated with particular families, not the surname, on the surname page?--Michael White^T·C 08:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Smith (surname), you do not find a list of people with the name, but are directed to List of people with surname Smith. So, no, there is no "proper purpose" for a surname page that Roosevelt (surname) goes against, as not every surname page matches the template you propose.

Roosevelt is a common spelling of a surname, with variations that include Van Rosevelt and Van Rosenvelt and many others, and becomes the hub for all the related variants. They are all still the same surname, just people had no set spelling for a family name as they do today. Many people had no need to sign their name more than a few times during their life, and could not always remember how last they spelt their name as years passed; Shakespeare signed his more often and even he could not keep to a fixed spelling. Just like how your Johnston example lists Johnson as an alternate for the same name, the variations do not constitute wholly new names, but just a variation of the same one.

Four sentences that explain the use of "Van" in some records and the lack of it in others is too detailed? It's only four sentences.

Yes, there is a misconception that there is a singular Roosevelt coat of arms, or a singular Smith coat of arms, or Johnston or so on. That misconception is corrected, and then multiple examples are given to back that up. Not every coat of arms is given, just a few to make it clear beyond some brief statement that their is no singular arms.

It's not like the article goes into excruciating detail on the families, just a brief overview. If you think it is proper to list people of the surname on the surname page, it should be fine to list the families that use the surname as well. There is no need to create so many subcategorized articles. A Roosevelt (disambiguation) page for all things Roosevelt, a Roosevelt family page for all the members of the Roosevelt family that are not in the disambiguation page that is supposed to be all things Roosevelt, a Roosevelt (surname) page to discuss the origin of the Roosevelt name being a misspelling of the original Dutch name, a link to the original Dutch Van Rosenvelt (surname), which then should mention how it could be related to the other Dutch name Van Rosevelt (surname), which then mentions a prominent family and so links to Van Rosevelt family. Is that what I have to do? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Smith (surname), that's because Smith is extremely common and apparently present in countless languages, so a lot can be written about the surname itself, and List of people with surname Smith is huge and a disambiguation page itself.

Regardless of the fact that Roosevelt and Van Rosevelt may be related, Roosevelt and Van Rosevelt are not different variants of the same surname - they are different surnames. As such, I think the only proper place for any discussion of the Van Rosevelt family is in Roosevelt family, given their possible but not proven relationship. The two Roosevelt coats of arms are connected to the families, not the surname, so they shouldn't be on the surname page. I'm going to be bold and make some changes, I think you might find them amenable.--Michael White^T·C 15:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just added an alphabetical list of people at Roosevelt (surname)#People. Can anyone find other people with the surname who are not part of the Roosevelt family?--Michael White^T·C 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And with regard to the four sentences on use of "Van", I don't think the article needs to explain that unless the reader needs to know it to understand the rest of the article. Instead we can just link to Dutch name#Surnames.--Michael White^T·C 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather than do a back and forth as we have, can we agree that there is no consensus on where to place the information? For every example you find as precedent for your preference, I can find for mine. Citing policy is useless as well, as there is no policy for this situation, just the interpretation of policy to our own benefit while ignoring policy to our detriment.

So, starting anew, let me first say that I believe a disambiguation page is where all things named "X" should go, and not to "X (this)" and "X (that)". However, in this instance, if the Roosevelt disambiguation page section for notable persons links to Roosevelt family, I would consent to that. While listing all of that family, it also provides a useful guide to the lineage that a disambiguation page generally would not. I do not agree on making two or more lists, so would wish the smaller version found on Roosevelt (surname) be removed. If there are two lists, people may update List A, but be unaware of List B; someone else may update List B and paste it over List A unaware that A had updates not found on B. Basically the two compete and people’s efforts may be unwillingly lost.

I also do not believe that a surname page should only include etymology and statistics. That makes for short and uninteresting articles that are hardly worth having. I do not think that people are searching for surname pages in teh hopes that someone posted the census statistics, but rather to find out some general history of the families. The sections I provided were short and concise they did not go into unneeded genealogical research. Just prominent Roosevelt families. Yes, the spellings are different, but they are the same name. There is no need to create a Roosevelt, Van Rosevelt and Van Rosenvelt page if they have all the same origin and so on. The spellings are merely a cosmetic detail that arose over centuries of the populous unable to read or write, immigration to new places that tried to naturalize foreign sounding names and so forth. So, the most common or appropriate surname page should become a hub for all other variations to redirect to.

The Oud-Vossemeer family seems misplaced on the new York family page as there is only the suggestion of a familial link. I have enough content for a page on the Oud-Vossemeer family, but I am not interested in subcategorizing everything to miniscule stub articles. Nor am I wishing to create articles taht require a person to sail to the Tholen island and delve into the catacombs of the amt lord house to pourr over antique records (but, if someone volunteers, please be sure that you are fluent in Dutch, less a horrible realization after you arrive :-) ). I despise the articles I find that are written with each sentence as a bullet point, where people are incapable of forming a full paragraph. Or where one article that is a stub links to more information on another stub article that yet links to another stub, rather than pull it all together as one. So, rather than have a short article on the Oud-Vossemeer family, one which few would know even to find or existed, I believe it is best placed in the surname article. This will add content and some interest to the article, and allow it to develop into not just an article reaching bare notability standards, but into a rather decent and comprehensive one.[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Do what you want. I wasn't involved in this discussion before and I don't want to get into an edit war. I think Roosevelt family as it stands at the moment is a good presentation of the facts. I think the ideal solution would be to create a page on the Oud-Vossemeer family and then briefly mention it in Roosevelt family. I agree that it seems awkward to talk at length about the Van Rosevelts of Oud-Vossemeer in Roosevelt family given that there's only a tenuous connection, but isn't it then more awkward to talk about it in Roosevelt (surname) given that

• Roosevelt and Van Rose(n)velt are different surnames. You've said you think otherwise, that they're different forms of the same surname, but to avoid a long argument, I would just answer, would you say that someone living today named Claes van Rosenvelt has the same surname as someone named Franklin Roosevelt? I wouldn't. Just because they're related doesn't mean they're the same surname.
• As far as I can tell (and I was looking for exceptions to add to Roosevelt (surname)#People under a different subsection), everyone with the surname Roosevelt who has an entry in Wikipedia is a member of the Roosevelt family. So, talking about the Oud-Vossemeer family in Roosevelt (surname) is essentially the same as doing it in Roosevelt family with regard to the genealogical relation, except that the surnames are different, so there's really no reason to bring it up on Roosevelt (surname) instead of Roosevelt family.
• Regardless, there does need to be a list of all people with the last name Roosevelt somewhere. Roosevelt (surname)#People could be split to List of people with surname Roosevelt if you prefer. But then there wouldn't really be much to talk about in Roosevelt (surname), so I think it should be kept as is.
• So to rehash, I think the best option is to make an article on the Oud-Vossemeer family, link to it from Roosevelt family#History and if you wish Roosevelt (surname). As for the coats of arms, considering that as you know, coats of arms do not apply to everyone with a certain surname, it doesn't make sense to have the coats of arms in Roosevelt (surname), except perhaps to illustrate a typical canting arms for Roosevelt, but little more than an image and caption would be needed in that case.--Michael White^T·C

I support Michael White edits and agree with the listed points. In my opinion things are much clearer now. All these articles were beginning to blur together. If there's enough for a stub on the Van Rosevelts, i don't see how it'd hurt if someone created it. There was never any consensus to gut this article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To your first listed point: Someone else thought it was the same name, just separate versions as well. This is taken from the Franklin Roosevelt article, "Roosevelt is an Anglicized form of the Dutch surname 'Van Rosevelt,' or 'Van Rosenvelt'". Everyone that edited it also seemed to have no issue with it either. Yes, I would think given the similarity between Franklin's and Claes' surnames, you would be able to conclude they were not coincidence, and that Roosevelt really did indeed come from the name Van Rosenvelt. You really don't see how Roosevelt and Rosenvelt are similar? Really? Not connected at all?

(snip) That sentence was actually written by me just yesterday/today when I was editing the page. The level of pedantry we're engaging in about this is kind of ridiculous so all I'm going to say with regard to that is that the statement "Roosevelt is a form of the Dutch surname Van Rosenvelt" does not imply that Roosevelt and Van Rosenvelt are the same surname. No one's denying that they're related, but the proper place for talking about the Van Rosenvelts of Oud-Vossemeer is on a page describing the relationship - a family page like Roosevelt family, not on a surname page, the proper purpose of which is to disambiguate people. You've cited Kennedy (surname) and O'Neill (surname) as examples of pages that do not adhere to this, but in fact these are articles you've been editing recently in the same vein. If you look at other articles, the overwhelming usage on Wikipedia is surname articles as disambiguation pages for people with that exact name, spelled exactly that way. That's why there are, as you noted, surname pages for names much less notable than Roosevelt - because their primary purpose is as disambiguation pages. Now, that doesn't mean there can't also be general discussion of the history of the name, but whole paragraphs related to the history of specific families and their particular coats of arms just don't belong. They belong in the articles about those families.--Michael White^T·C 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To your second: Since Roosevelt is likely a mispelling of the original Dutch, I am not surprised that ther are not any other Roosevelts. Have you tried searching for the other spelling variations? Oh, no, of course not. Because they are not "variations," but two completely unrelated made up names that just happen to pass through one family coincidentally.

(snip) Actually I have, and there aren't any on Wikipedia.--Michael White^T·C 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your third point: A list is not "much to talk about". It fills space. Sure, it gives the appearance of a fuller article. but it contributes nothing; especially in this instance as it is a copy of an already preexisting list form another page. Adding lists to pages does not make them any more comprehensive, but masks the shortfalls of an article by misleading editors into the length of an article.

(snip) Ever heard of Featured lists? Disambiguation? An alphabetical list of Roosevelt-surnamed people is indeed worth having in an article titled Roosevelt (surname).--Michael White^T·C 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To your fourth point: The intent was to make one article that was detailed and comprehensive. The surname page will be nothing more than a stub or list ever. Same for the Roosevelt family page. Continue on subcategorizing everything into one paragraph articles while you are at it. They are just a click away, and it is so easy to just keep clicking and clicking. No, it couldn't be easier to have everything in one place if you can click. There would be paragraphs in between what people want to read, that would require scrolling. Why scroll when you can click. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"The surname page will be nothing more than a stub or list ever. Same for the Roosevelt family page." For the former, as it largely should be. For the latter, that doesn't make any sense considering it's much more than a stub even now. I too agree that article splitting is bad but don't see how that's particularly relevant here.--Michael White^T·C 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition to Theodore Roosevelt article

As even the talkpage of Theodore Roosevelt is protected so hard I can't even suggest it there, I'll give it a shot here at least. Might it be noteworthy that Roosevelt probably was the very first US President who was recorded to *COLOR* motion picture film (see Kinemacolor for the color process, this was NO hand coloring) while in office? [1] --79.193.48.151 (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)