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 B-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.
B This article has been rated as B-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.

Profile picture[edit]

Would it be possible to use this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Theodore_Roosevelt_laughing.jpg for the fun of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.130.218 (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm rather partial to this one. It shows him while he was president... still young and hopeful and full of life. The one up there now shows him several years after the presidency... disillusioned, pissed off and growing his peppers and tomatoes. – JBarta (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Jbarta, I should note that the one you suggested was once used for quite some time until a switch came along within the past year or so. If it means anything, the one being used right now is a featured picture, perhaps your suggested pic could become one as well. Also, your description of the currently used photo made me laugh :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a little digging... an uncropped version of the younger picture was used for a while until User:EeuHP (who is currently blocked BTW) changed it to the current picture back in May 2013. Interestingly, EeuHP made exactly one edit to this article... and that was to change the picture. In all seriousness though, I don't really care all that much which picture is used. We have a number of nice ones, any of which will do nicely. (including the current one) That said, while the laughing TR is a great photo, it's probably not the best choice for his "profile picture". – JBarta (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Teddy[edit]

This sentence in the "veteran" section:

However, the "Teddy" name remained much more popular with the public...

is the earliest mention of "Teddy" on this page. The second mention simply states that Roosevelt despised being called "Teddy". The third mentions teddy bears being named after him. I feel the public perception of him as "Teddy" should be mentioned in the summary paragraph so these later mentions are properly contextualised, otherwise they only make sense if everybody already knows he was called that. Silas Maxfield (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

suspected plaigarism[edit]

in the section attributed to source number 115, the text reads in a style inconsistent with the general article and more akin to the source (Thayer, 1919).

the offending bit is "Taft ignored the risks and tackled the tariff boldly, on the one hand encouraging reformers to fight for lower rates, and then cutting deals with conservative leaders that kept overall rates high. The resulting Payne-Aldrich tariff of 1909 was too high for most reformers, but instead of blaming this on Senator Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich and big business, Taft took credit, calling it the best tariff ever. He again had managed to alienate all sides. While the crisis was building inside the Party, Roosevelt was touring Africa and Europe, to allow Taft to be his own man."

Would rewrite it as "Taft ignored the risks and tackled the tariff boldly by playing both sides. He both encouraged reformers to fight for lower rates while conducting agreements with conservative leaders to ensure that rates would remain high. The resulting Payne-Aldrich tariff of 1909 initially only pleased business leaders who would later become disenchanted by an eventual minor economic downturn (precipitating the major meltdown of the 1930s). Taft lavished the agreement as the best tariff ever and took full responsibility, acknowledging neither Senator Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich nor big business. During this time of political and economic dissent, Roosevelt was on tour in Africa and Europe, giving Taft free reign to alienate all sides." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ess you bee mss ion (talkcontribs) 19:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The text is pretty good as it stands and the proposed revision is not so good. I provided a better reference. I wrote the original text for Citizendium seven years ago and did not use Thayer at all. (Thayer was a TR partisan with a very old-fashioned style nothing like the text here.) As for the proposed rewrite there are multiple problems: a) "initially only please the business leaders who would later become disenchanted" is unsourced and not true and the reference to the 1930s is totally out of place; b) "giving Taft free reign to alienate all sides" is highly misleading – that was the opposite of Roosevelt's motivation. c) What bothered the reformers, was that terms remained high on traditional industries-- to the benefit of both the owners and the workers-- d) and that Payne-Aldrich had lowered the tariff on agricultural products from their own states which they wanted to keep high.Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding the Theodore Roosevelt Center to the Wikipedia Page[edit]

Would it be possible to add this link, http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/, to the list of resources? Thank you. PJP1313 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a fine resource. I added it. – JBarta (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Theodore Roosevelt Article fails to mention key faults.[edit]

Based upon the research of some writers, among them James Brady, Roosevelt shared the racist views of his professors at Harvard and common among the elites of the day. Brady describes, with liberal use of quotes from Roosevelt and others, a reverence for the Aryan race born out of the German forests and charged with ruling the earth. Some professors and authors (possibly including Roosevelt himself) even spoke of eliminating the inferior races in newly conquered lands. One quote from Teddy speaks of how whites on the American frontier viewed the Indians as barely above the beasts, but it does not indicate if he agrees with such views. Brady speaks of these things in his book THE IMPERIAL VOYAGE. As outlined in several books (so not just Brady's opinion), under Roosevelt's overall command as president, American troops in the Philippines killed tens of thousands of Filipino troops (about 20,000) who had welcomed them as liberators and killed between 200,000 and 1,000,000 civilians. The former number is the official American estimate while various Filipino agencies and organizations estimate between 600,000 and 1,000,000. During the same time rape and gang rape of Filipino girls and women took place, but I am unable, at this time, to get statistics on the prevalence of that. Having been in contact with China for centuries and a Spanish colony for almost four hundred years, many of these Filipinos were quite sophisticated, and even many rural people were house dwellers rather than jungle tribesmen. Robert F. Jackson, Jr. (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2014[edit]

Please correct the word "viscous" to what the writer really meant: "vicious". 174.27.222.165 (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done{{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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]

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)

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)