Talk:Theodore Roosevelt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Theodore Roosevelt is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject New York / Columbia University  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Homeschooling (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeschooling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of homeschooling-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject College football (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Government / Governors / Military history / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Presidents (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Roosevelt resigned from the Navy[edit]

Isn't that a misstatement? Teddy was in the Department of the Navy and not the US Navy itself. Hcobb (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it could certainly be misleading, and went ahead and added that he resigned from "his civilian leadership job with" the Navy. Thanks for pointing that out. —ADavidB 02:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is rough consensus to oppose the merger. The majority opinion argument is that enough notability exists for a separate article. AlbinoFerret 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

While Alice is a plausible search term, she fails WP:BIO and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All sources talking about her mainly pertain to her husband, and she wasn't really known for anything outside of her Roosevelt affiliation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's not and say we did. She's a separate person and needs a separate biography. If you want to ruin this article then go ahead, but this is about Theodore Roosevelt, not Alice.99.108.198.222 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood what I meant, see WP:Merging. I was suggesting to include some information on Alice in this article, and for hers to redirect here. The idea isn't to retitle the page to be about both of them. Not every person warrants a separate article, as noted at WP:Notability (people). Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Wives of presidents DO.Ericl (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Not automatically. While second wife Edith is famous as First Lady, Alice is much less notable on her own per WP:ANYBIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
yes indeedie! However, she's notable enough.Ericl (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
How so? Name one thing outside of family affiliations that makes her notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing really, however, Martha Jefferson has a page, as do all the other pre-presidential wives and post-presidential spouses Mary Dimmick Harrison and Caroline C. Fillmore have pages too. Why all the hating?Ericl (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, there is no "hating" going on. As for other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a convincing reason to have a page because one solely cannot use the notability level of one subject to determine another subject's notability. If a subject isn't known for anything outside of family affiliations, then the subject doesn't warrant a separate article because—as previously stated—notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTINHERITED. is for "two degrees of separation" or more. For instance, FDR's niece on his half brother's side, Helen Rebecca Roosevelt, doesn't have an article, and that's good. She didn't have an impact on FDR's life or anyone else's for that matter (outside of her family and a small circle of friends). The same goes for William Howard Taft, 2nd, who was named after his great uncle. He had no impact on anything at all and doesn't rate an article. Alice Lee, on the other hand, had a major impact on Theodore Roosevelt's life, and thus, indirectly, on history in general. You cannot say the same thing about most of Winston Churchill's grandchildren...and one other thing, articles on major US presidents are too long as it is, which is why there's so much splitting. The story of TR's first marriage is extremely important to the building of his character, and it should be told in HER article, with only a bit of it in his. Ericl (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not exactly how WP:Notability (people) works..... Impact on someone's life doesn't automatically mean one meets notability criteria. A person doesn't warrant a separate article if they don't have any notability on their own. Alice has little (if any) on her own. She is a plausible search term and warrants a mention in this article, but doesn't have enough on her own for a separate article. Best for her to redirect to this article, regardless of President article length. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Uhhhhhh, no. "Reliable" and "significant coverage" in secondary "sources" such as Carol Felsenthal (31 December 2003). Princess Alice: The Life and Times of Alice Roosevelt Longworth. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-30222-1 and Stacy A. Cordery (30 September 2008). Alice: Alice Roosevelt Longworth, from White House Princess to Washington Power Broker. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-311427-7 means "presumed" per WP:N. Therefor we must keep both. Archivist1174 (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Archivist1174:, I don't know how much Alice the WIFE of TR is covered in those books, but the title would suggest that the subject matter is primarily dealing with Alice the DAUGHTER of TR. Nonetheless, I would still say that the article should be kept. p b p 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting to merge wife Alice, not the daughter. Notability is not inherited, and WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." Unlike the daughter, there's no convincing reason for the wife to have a separate article since she's only known for family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you are interpreting NOTINHERITED a little differently than it's been interpreted. Most people deleted under the auspices of NOTINHERITED aren't deleted because there are few, if any, sources without mention of another family member, they are deleted because there are few, if any, sources at all. p b p 12:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Weak support per NOTINHERITED, but this article seems to be quite long and seems reasonably sourced. Epic Genius (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I really think NOTINHERITED was intended more for siblings/children/wife of pop culture celebrities. As a wife of a president of the United States she is inherently notable, she's even inspired a book http://www.biblio.com/9780385243490 even more as a mother of a presidential child is a place in history that historians would read about for years. I cannot see how merging this would be good for the project, how would you summarize 10,000 bytes without losing information our readers would want to see? Even more so making this article clunky. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it was intended for people of all types. WP:BIOFAMILY states that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Therefore, family affiliations alone are NOT enough to warrant a separate article. All that she warrants is a brief mention here and on daughter's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: All i am saying is if she is in other encyclopedias as a historical person, http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-2591308047/roosevelt-alice-lee-18611884.html, there seems to be reliable sources that are not online but as i am in Australia i may not have access to such print sources. If she is in a women's history encyclopedia i'd use WP:IGNOREALLRULES for this case.GuzzyG (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"Ignore all rules" doesn't apply; there's no demonstration of how she's notable outside of her relationship with Theodore. Even the sources you provide are heavily based/focused on her relationship with him. See the "Invalid criteria" and WP:BIOFAMILY sections of WP:BIO for why she doesn't meet notability, unlike Edith Roosevelt. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This reminds me or all of all the dead royal babies who have articles and minor nobles as well. Henry VIII had five or six sons, none of whom lived more than a few weeks, yet most of them have an article. Edward VI doesn't count in this case). The same with a bunch of younger sons of minor British Dukes or the likes of Xavier, Duke of Aquitaine. She had an effect on history and this thus notable.Ericl (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a convincing argument for keeping an article. Alice actually had no direct impact on history. Notability can't solely come from being a family member of someone famous. She didn't even serve as First Lady. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, she did. She chose where TR got his home in Sagamore Hill.Ericl (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose — Most of the first ladies (including Michael Obama) have a Wikipedia article. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to use the "this crap exist" argument, I am saying that this woman does seem notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Edith Roosevelt served as First Lady during Theodore's presidency, not Alice. Besides, being a spouse of someone famous is not by itself a valid reason to keep an article per WP:BIO (see the "Invalid criteria" and WP:BIOFAMILY sections for more). Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merging. She was never First Lady, the majority of the article is about T.R.'s courtship with her and her death, and her most notable act in life seems to be marrying and then widowing the future POTUS. -- WV 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose She may not have been first lady, but neither was Martha Jefferson, wife of Thomas Jefferson who died 20 years before Jefferson's Presidency. In this case, Alice's life and death had a profound impact on Roosevelt. Not only was she his first love, but her death sent him to Ranch in the Dakotas. Without that, his political rise may have been different, had he stayed in the Assembly. Maybe his cowboy persona would never have been developed while ranching on the plains. She is important enough. Spartan7W § 03:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not exactly how notability works. Please see the "Invalid criteria" and "Family" sections of WP:Notability (people) as well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Notability is not inherited; being a woman he loved does not by itself make her notable. There's no convincing reason for her to have a separate article, especially since the vast majority of it pertains to her relationship with the President. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She was a notable part of the first night of Ken Burns' documentary on the Roosevelts. That means what's said in her article can be cited with reliable sources. Otherwise, one could claim that a certain wife of Henry VIII isn't as notable as the other wives and therefore shouldn't have her own article. A presidential bio has a wide ranging scope to cover. There's more scope to cover Teddy's first marriage here than in his bio, and I highly doubt she'd have been Teddy's first wife had she not been a notable member of society of the time herself. MMetro (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again..... notability is not inherited; see the "family" and "invalid criteira" sections of WP:Notability (people), which state being related to/married to someone famous DOES NOT BY ITSELF make a person notable. The vast majority of her article is really about her relationship with the president, and has nothing of value that can't be included her. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
"If a notable person's main article is too long to contain all of their works, then a separate page can be created for that information"-- clearly the case here MMetro (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
You've overlooked this problem: just about everything except for Alice's birth and death pertain to her relationship with Theodore. She has nothing of value that warrants a separate article. Again, there is nothing significant about her that can't be mentioned here. Additionally, raw article size by itself doesn't mean non-notable relatives should have pages. Bits also don't necessarily need to be extensive when merged into other articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Alice's personal info does not belong in Teddy's bio, period. However, the marriage is notable, and can be covered in detail through her article. You're not gonna stop until you've succeeded in crufting a presidential bio, are you? MMetro (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Just about all of her notable info is already here anyway. It is NOT an instance of "crufting" to have her redirect here at all when including all notable detail. Please read WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and WP:Notability (people)#Family if you haven't already. Admittedly, I am frustrated that people have overlooked the fact that she isn't notable enough for a separate article per the links provided. While Edith on the other hand has WP:Notability on her own, Alice most certainly doesn't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Repeating yourself does not increase your validity, Snugg. The reference to Alice Lee Roosevelt is 2 paragraphs with 3 citations in the TR article-- a proper length integrated into Teddy's bio. Alice's article is 11 paragraphs with 11 citations and divided into 3 main sections. It is a developed article that demonstrates her notability despite the chauvinism that existed of the time. The article expands upon the first marriage and widowhood section of the Teddy article. Books have been written about her as many have noted. Considering how many times you've had to explain yourself, could the lack of notability actually be in reference to you, not her? You don't seem to be building a consensus, while the consensus continually cites proof of her notability, leaving you to try to quote OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is actually a proof for either opinion. MMetro (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
(Shakes head in disappointment) Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED; one does not become notable solely through a marriage. Additionally, just about every reliable source discussing her really pertains more to Theodore than her. For those claiming she is notable (which she isn't per the links I provided), nobody has provided any convincing evidence to prove it. Being married to someone famous DOES NOT by itself make one notable. She's pretty much a case of WP:BIO1E, with the "1E" being her relationship. In order for her to warrant a separate page, one would have to include something significant she was noted for that had nothing to do with family affiliations. Unless someone can somehow provide that, she's not notable. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, that states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist. None of the "these exist" articles mentioned provide good rationales for keeping Alice's page because relationships ≠ notability, and they don't really focus on what significance she has. It would've helped if her article at least went into more than just brief detail about her life prior to when they met, but there's nothing of value even there included. I'd probably be more inclined to keep her if she served as first lady, but she never became that. I'm afraid that lots of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:Notability (people) requires. If it makes people feel any better about raw article size, this article doesn't necessarily have to be extended more than a couple of sentences or maybe a paragraph if merged; her birth range and perhaps her initial views of him would likely be all of value that isn't already included here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Although Alice lee Roosevelt was not a First Lady, she was the first wife of a POTUS. From the page explaining inherited notability: "being married to the President of the United States typically does, after 1932 at least...." In addition, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." A Ken Burns documentary and the books that others have mention certainly qualify as such secondary sources. Enough time has been spent on your fallacious reasoning. It certainly isn't in the Wikipedian spirit to exclude content through strict adherence legalese rather than the merits that those guidelines try to achieve. MMetro (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "After 1932"..... they were married in the 1880's, and had both died long before 1932. Not sure if WP:BIO is being misunderstood, disregarded, or both. In any case, WP:BIOFAMILY specifically says that notability doesn't come solely for being related to a famous person. Such articles are therefore discouraged due to lack of independent notability. This isn't so much about "exclud[ing] content" as it is a matter of independent notability (which she lacks). "Presumed to be notable" doesn't automatically equate to "is notable", either. Edith Roosevelt, on the other hand, was noted for more than just being TR's wife. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
But it's not solely for being related. The secondary sources note the effect her death had on Theodore, and upon the raising of her daughter. Note what the explanation on the page was trying to say. He's POTUS. At a certain point, fame is not just fame. You are dealing with people who changed history in a HUGE way, and at that point, the people important to that person can affect history too (Example: every wife of Henry VIII). Supposing what that effect may be would be WP:CRYSTAL, but what actually did happen is NOTABLE. Teddy got even further into New York politics to hide from her death. And what WP:NOTABILITY actually means is that Alice's relatives don't get to have their own article. Presuming that "Presumed to be notable doesn't automatically equate to "is notable" is not any less of a presumption. You're stretching yourself. MMetro (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The reason IS relevant in this case; since notability is not inherited, marriage to a famous person is not by itself enough to warrant a separate article as per WP:BIO. With no other defining aspects (things one is noted for), she doesn't meet notability criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per my comments at the concurrent AFD, which is also just about to close as a "keep". She meets the GNG, and there's enough content present. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
You, along with every one !voting oppose here and keep at the AfD, are wrong. It's in times such as this that the "community" concept in regard to decision-making utterly fails. Why? Because the point/bottom line in what an encyclopedia is and should be is forgotten or pushed aside in favor of... God knows what. -- WV 16:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Take your sour grapes elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
My comments come nowhere close to violating the policy you linked to, and you know it. If you don't, you should. Especially as an admin. -- WV 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, whoops. I read that as one sentence baselessly complaining that you didn't agree with me, and then 3-4 sentences randomly complaining about Wikipedia and how the concept of consensus was not working in your favor here. Apologies. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a crap about the consensus going against me, because neither the article nor my !vote are about me. My comments here and at the AfD are about the article and the encyclopedia. This is just more B.S. non-AGF from you, Serge. One hopes to see better attitudes, knowledge, and behavior from admins. Sadly, I'm seeing none of that from you here. Pity. -- WV 00:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There's yet another response that doesn't refer to the Roosevelts at all... Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015[edit]

hi, in foreing policies of 1904 subpage Latin america, you guys put Columbia and FOR GODS SAKE IT'S COLOMBIA' NOT COLUMBIA Thanks for the attention 190.28.154.166 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015[edit]

75.111.129.229 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Spouse(s) Alice Lee (m. 1880–84; her death) Edith Carow (m. 1886–1919; his*** death)

Her***

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015[edit]

75.111.129.229 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Spouse(s) Alice Lee (m. 1880–84; her death) Edith Carow (m. 1886–1919; his death)

NO change, please disregard my previous edit request.

National Guard[edit]

None of the major biographies devote any attention to his brief membership in the National Guard. TR was a joiner but no RS claims this was important. The first source listed (Wilson) gives one-half sentence to the matter. The second by Marschall gives two sentences and says the experience was "rather too minor." Now this short Wiki bio gives 5x as much space! Rjensen (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Rjensen, I wasn't aware that policy exists whereby we limit the amount of space for content in an article based on what "major biographies" write. What's more, that policy must state we are required to completely leave out a portion of someone's life in a biography because no reliable source deems it "important". Perhaps you can find that policy and enlighten me, because such reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. -- WV 04:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow--your one source explicitly says it was minor. why do you disagree with your own source? Wikipedia reflects the views of the RS, not individual editors. It's quite possible to write 200,000 words on TR, so the editors use the RS to tell what is important and what is not. Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I note your response does not contain anything that supports your belief that we limit content inclusion to only that which is written about by "major biographies". No matter. I was able to incorporate content on TR's National Guard service - something he referred to as "invaluable" (see this [1] for more) - into the section on the SA War and the Rough Riders. Complete with references, of course. -- WV 05:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015[edit]

Change the spelling of Roosvelt to Roosevelt ! Thanks ! Hanssenken (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done where is there a use of Roosvelt to change? - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

He brought 40 antitrust suits, and broke up major companies, such as the largest railroad and Standard Oil, the largest oil company.

Suggested edit: He brought 40 antitrust suits, and broke up major companies, such as Standard Oil and the Northern Securities Company, the largest oil company and largest railroad company, respectively.

This clarifies the sentences and gives further precision as to which significant companies Roosevelt broke up.

Doodler999 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Doodler999

Initials[edit]

I executed an edit which moved the initials from the bold name at the beginning of the article (as such is the birth name, or full name of the individual), to be placed right after the full name and lifespan. However, User:Winkelvi moved the initials further into the text, to head a line talking about his character and personality. As one sees from fellow Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, as well as Senator Robert F. Kennedy, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and RFK, respectively, the initials, which are a common stand-in for the individual's name in conversation and informal reference, are placed directly following the full name and lifespan. Such may be exemplified as follows, from the article on President Johnson:

Lyndon Baines Johnson (/ˈlɪndən ˈbnz ˈɒnsən/; August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973), often referred to as LBJ, was the 36th President of the United States (1963–1969), a position he assumed after his service as the 37th Vice President (1961–1963).

I followed this same format for President Roosevelt, to read as follows:

Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (/ˈrzəvɛlt/ ROH-zə-velt; October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919), often referred to by his initials TR, was an American politician, author, naturalist, soldier, explorer, and historian who served as the 26th President of the United States.

Such composition follows for other initialed American Presidents and politicians, and makes the most sense. As he was referred to commonly as TR, as historians do as well today (such as in conversational context during a lecture or television documentary), it is prudent to place such mention following his full name, such that the reader may, without doubt, immediately know that this article does document the same person for whom the referenced initials TR apply. The current reference to initials, placed by User:Winkelvi, is as follows:

Often referred to by his initials TR, he was known for his exuberant personality, range of interests and achievements, and his leadership of the Progressive Movement, as well as his "cowboy" persona and robust masculinity.

It is my judgement that such placement, further in the text, is less ideal that following directly his full name. Furthermore, the subject of this line is to refer to his character and personality, and his being referred to by his initials, TR, has nothing to do with his persona or cultural image, reference by initials is simply convenience. Obviously 'Teddy' isn't included here, because the President both despised this nickname, and it would never have been used to describe him alone. No discussion of him would say "Teddy's time in the Amazon may have significantly reduced his lifespan", but they might say "what TR did in building the Panama Canal was greatly important for global commerce in the twentieth century". Unlike James Earl Carter and William Jefferson Clinton, who were universally called "Jimmy" and "Bill", the placement of "Teddy" is completely inappopriate in the bold full name, and TR out of place because nobody ever said "President TR" or "President TR Roosevelt" as they would say "President Bill Clinton". By placing his initials, TR, we immediately introduce to the reader the connection between an abbreviation of his name, and his full name.

While formal reference would say "Roosevelt...", "Governor Roosevelt", or "President Roosevelt", just as Lyndon Johnson would be referred as "Johnson" or "President Johnson", and never by their initials, its placement directly following his name and lifespan is both consistent with other articles concerning individuals referred to by initials, but is also the most logical, as any other placement of "often referred to by his initials TR", which is an incomplete thought, means combining it with an extant sentence which is not as directly related to the individual as the introductory sentence, which includes basic, vital information including his full name, lifespan, and most significant achievement. --Spartan7W § 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The argument of other articles using initials for presidents and the content's placement is really a non-starter. When one says "uniformity" because other articles are written a particular way when it comes to prose rather than MOS issues, it's really not a valid argument. Uniformity/consistency is more for sections, infoboxes, and the like. As far as presidential initials -- there's no standard or policy for where the content should be introduced. Spartan7W stated on my talk page that where "TR" currently exists in the article is distracting. I just don't see how it can be considered so. I did, however, find where Spartan had placed it before I moved it quite distracting, hence the reason why I placed it elsewhere in the lead. As it is currently, I believe it fits with the content on Roosevelt's personality, and how he was seen by those who knew him - most likely folk who actually called him "TR". He was called TR long before he was president. I dare say neither of the Kennedy brothers nor Lyndon Johnson were called by their initials before John Kennedy's presidency beginning in 1961. Indeed, JFK was known as "Jack" by family, friends, and even the voting public during the 1960 campaign. If the initials don't stay where they are, I suggest they be moved back to where they were before Spartan moved the content. -- WV 04:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've restored back to Spartan's version. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussion; it is not a valid rationale for breaking accepted style norms used across articles. Calidum T|C 01:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015[edit]

please change "he wsas the spokesman for" to "he was the spokesman for". this is a typo UltralordSweet (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Edits have been reverted Cannolis (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraph wording[edit]

I don't wish to ignite an edit war, but various edits to the reconstruction of the lead are, in my opinion, less than ideal grammatical structures and wordings.

1. :A sickly child whose asthma was debilitating and nearly fatal, Roosevelt regained his vigor, and embraced a strenuous life. He integrated his exuberant personality, vast range of interests, and world-famous achievements into a "cowboy" persona defined by its exultant masculinity.

My problems with this: TR didn't "regain" his vigor, since his sickness caused him to be sickly, and he had to build himself out of it. Following the historically accurate premise that TR pushed himself physically to overcome his natural weakness, this line's combination of exuberant personality, vast range of interests, and world-famous achievements doesn't accurately reflect the process that shaped him. He made himself robustly masculine as a child and young adult, and his wide range of interests as well. But his world famous achievements, as it is put, suggest that his personality/character was defined by them, when in reality they existed when he was a mere assemblyman, and as a cattle rancher. He was a man and a cowboy before he was Colonel, Governor, President, or explorer. Also, I think the wording of this line is a little too obvious as being built by thesaurus, since exultant really isn't a natural word to be followed by 'masculinity', even for an advanced reader. I would like to change this back to this:

A sickly child suffering from debilitating asthma, Roosevelt embraced a strenuous life, forming his exuberant personality, range of interests, achievements, along with his robust masculinity and "cowboy" persona.

2. Roosevelt attended Harvard College, where he studied biology, boxed, and developed an interest in naval affairs. His first of many books, The Naval War of 1812 (1882), established his reputation as both a learned historian and a popular writer.

I think these two sentences should be combined, as I think it is significant and important to stress that he authored an important book while enrolled at Harvard (albeit published shortly after graduation). My suggested revision:

Roosevelt attended Harvard college, where he studied biology, boxed, and developed an interest in naval affairs, writing his first book, The Naval War of 1812 (1882, establishing a reputation as a learned and popular historian.

3. He soon entered politics, winning election to the New York State Assembly in 1881. He became the leader of the reform faction of the Republican Party in the state.

This ought to be one sentence. The second is bordering an incomplete thought, and they are important together.

Following his time at Harvard, he entered politics, elected to the New York State Assembly in 1881, where he lead the reform faction of the Republican Party in Albany.

4. Following the deaths of his wife and mother on the same day in 1884, Roosevelt took a reprieve from politics to operate a cattle ranch in the Dakotas as a cowboy. When his herds died in a blizzard he returned to run unsuccessfully for Mayor of New York City in 1886. He became New York City Police Commissioner in 1895, where he instituted major reforms.

Saying both operator of a cattle ranch and cowboy is redundant. We already know from above he had the cowboy persona, and it can be read about below (including fellow cowboy's being unimpressed with his skills). I think it should be stressed that he became commissioner of police after his mayoral loss, just for continuity's sake.

Roosevelt took a reprieve from politics to ranch in the Dakotas, returning after a blizzard decimated his herd, running unsuccessfully for Mayor of New York City in 1886; he later became New York City Police Commissioner in 1895, where he instituted major reforms.

Those are the revisions I would like to make, which would be best served by consensus. They will be done if there is no forthright opinion expressed. -- Spartan7W § 14:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi Protection Status[edit]

Can someone please give this article Semi-Protection Status!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrand6 (talkcontribs) 23:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Avrand6: Why does it need protection? I don't see any instability nor has there been any vandalism. -- WV 23:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking through the page logs, this has actually been semi-protected since October 2012 due to ongoing vandalism. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Quit referring to him as Theodore Roosevelt Jr.[edit]

I fought this battle before. Wikipedia had his title as TR Jr., his son as TR III and the next one as TR IV. This is wrong, and I got it changed by sending over links of their tombstones. The confusion comes from the fact that his father was also named Theodore Roosevelt and it is natural to assume that since the son has the same name, he is a Jr. However, this is not the case. Theodore Roosevelt was just Theodore Roosevelt, no Jr. The headline is now fixed, but the first paragraph misidentifies him. Please fix. I could send the tombstones again, but you can google those as easy as I can. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.112.203 (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Eugenics and the "reliable secondary source" fallacy[edit]

A recent undo edit goes a little far, stretching the WP:SECONDARY policy beyond all logic and reason, and likely its intended use for spurrious edits. First off, the quote "I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them" has been on this wiki page for over a year and has never been challenged, in none of your prior 50 edits.

So why are you cleansing that from this page now when you've never objected to it before?

Also, one of the cites that I listed is a picture of Theodore Roosevelt's actual letter to Charles Davenport. What exactly is a reliable secondary source going to do? Look at the letterhead, see that it is from The Outlook, the publication he used to work at, and say "yep, there it is". This letter has been written about in several books. You could have easily picked another one.

And the same goes for the third. Theodore Roosevelt wrote a glowing review for Madison Grant's book The Passing of the Great Race. If you think the cites I have listed both primary and secondary are unreliable, it is incumbent upon you to explain why, in detail. None of these quotes nor sources differs greatly from the entry that has been on this Wiki page for over a year passing your 50 edits. As for what I typed, The use of WP:NPOV is also stretched into uselessness. I wrote "This was not the first time that TR had suggested a certain viewpoint regarding human breeding". Since it wasn't. The quote that was originally on this page for the last year was from 1914. The Davenport letter is 1913. I wrote that Charles Davenport was a prominent eugenist. Well, he was. And as for the portion pertaining to his book review for Scribners, it's a book review section. That's what those book sections are for, to promote books.

So where is the WP:NPOV or WP:SECONDARY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressingamerica (talkcontribs) 04:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Just so it is said, the information regarding Theodore Roosevelt's eugenic views have been there since March 2nd, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressingamerica (talkcontribs) 04:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Old stuff has to follow the wiki rules abour reliable secondary sources. The section depends on private readings of primary sources--a very dangerous policy. ( the opening section about "many states" is simply false....only California was active in TR's day.) The Madison Grant passage is not about eugenics & hides the fact that

TR strongly disagreed with Madison Grant on biology, --TR was a neo-Lamarckian and Grant rejected that. TR said races could improve by environment and courage and Grant said characteristics were fixed. Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I incorporated what you mentioned about Neo-Lamarckism. It's useful in describing his views, perhaps you would like to review my changes and further refine?
In regard to his letter to Charles Davenport, it is not immediately clear to me how that letter differs much given the context of not only what I wrote last night, but also your now updated changes. If anything the Davenport letter further refines and helps you/me/a reader to understand Roosevelt's views. It appears to me to fit right in with what you wrote. There is an argument to be made that all history books are private readings of private sources; however this one-page letter is publicly available. Have you read it? Progressingamerica (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Roosevelt did nto depart "to the West"[edit]

When McKinley's condition seemed to be improving Roosevelt joined his family in New York's Adirondack Mountains where he climed Mt. Marcy. He did not "depart for the West". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.62.115 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015[edit]

This page does not currently display correctly on iPad, unlike all other President pages. It shows up in single column form appropriate for iPhone, not iPad. This seems to be a fairly recent development. Smykytyn (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)