Talk:Herbert Hoover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Herbert Hoover.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Herbert Hoover article.
Article policies
Herbert Hoover was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 5, 2006
Herbert Hoover is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] whitehouse.gov

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

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

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

they saved money studerby 14:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well if that's the case, why not just say that? The existing quote seems to suggest that the commissions' recommendations resulted in the creation of the "government economies" (I would think the governments' economies would exist, so long as the governments themselves existed)... -- MyrddinEmrys 06:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I think the picture located here ([1]) is better. Does anyone else? SeanO 01:22, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

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

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


I have been to [2] before to reaseasrch Herbert C. Hoover, and it has some pretty good info. If wikipedia HAS used that site as a source, I would expect at least two things:

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

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

!!!Reseacher96!!!

[edit] added positive actions Hoover took during the Depression

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

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

Here are two examples:

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

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

2) Herbert Hoover by Eugene Lyons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[edit] Hoover did not follow Mellon's 'trickle down economics'

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

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

All of this is documented by Eugene Lyons on pages 245 ff in his biography of Herbert Hoover

Why is there a large gap in the article?

I don't know which way the information flowed, but the last paragraph of the Wiki and the last paragraph of the official White House biography are nearly identical. Remember: even if you cite a work, if you directly quote from the work without using quotation marks to show the words are not your own, it's still plagarism.

The article implies that Mellon was responsible for the Great Depression. There are some questions about who had more influence on Hoover, Mellon or Ogden Mills.

[edit] changed positive actions Hoover took during the Depression

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

The section sorely needs to be rewritten.

Hmm...the additions by the first anon are clearly rather POV. What we need is a) a summary of what exactly Hoover did; and b) some discussion of the historiography surrounding them. My understanding is that Hoover's actions as president are viewed more positively now than they once were, and this should be included in the article. Of course, American history isn't my field, so I'm open to correction on this. Would anyone else want to weigh in on this? john k 05:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed... regardless of what he did, the language used in summarization is very biased positively. Buoren 21:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Starvation in Belgium, error of figure ?

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

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

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

[edit] Post Presidency Action, 1940 Presidential Convention

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

By the way, 1940 was the last real convention

[edit] Hoover of Swiss descent?

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

[edit] Editing Chores

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

[edit] Hoover in China

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

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

1. His biggest accomplishment.

2. The MOST IMPORTANT thing about his life.

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

Reseacher96

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

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

[edit] Charity

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

[edit] Rewrite

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

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

[edit] Second German period

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

[edit] GA on hold

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

[edit] Failed

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

[edit] March 4, 1933

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

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

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

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

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

Here is my $0.02. Who was it that said that the past is a different world, and they do things differently there? Prior to the 20th Amendment, precision seems not to have been a major concern. This horrifies us because we are used to a world in which lack of presidential command authority for even a few minutes is a matter of clear public danger, but this was not so until well after the period under discussion. Consider that Buchanan effectively abandoned the office at least a month before inauguration, and that was the gravest and most time-critical crisis the country had known.
A good point of reference is the U.S. Senate report on Presidential terms. We seem to have no evidence that, prior to the date in question, the question had even come up, let alone that there was a consensus answer. Congress was never in session that day, and no real business was going to be transacted. The outgoing President was going to be saluted smartly, regardless of the answer, and had no duty other than signing some ceremonial papers and turning over keys. To my knowledge, Hoover was the first outgoing President to actually do anything (and even that was a decision to do nothing) between bedtime March 3 and inauguration.
Why should FDR have produced a constitutional crisis when he was not ready to act for another two days in any case? We can make no argument from silence in this instance.
The argument is that Hoover chose to take (a null) action, and respond to the Fed, rather than telling them to go see FDR.Septentrionalis 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
An action that Citizen Hoover was equally qualified to take. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Consider the historical imprecision. The penultimate (1787-8) Continental Congress provided the first Wednesday in January (the 7th) as the date for choosing electors, the first Wednesday in February (the 4th) as the date on which they could give their votes, and the first Wednesday in March (also the 4th) as the date to begin operations under the Constitution. There appears to have been an assumption that this fixed the starting, and therefore ending, dates for terms. The last (1788-9) Continental Congress never met, although delegates presented their credentials -- I suspect that most of these were also the chosen Senators, but I have not checked the point.
Because of bad weather, the new House had no quorum until April 1 and the Senate not until April 7. Thus, the new government was in effect, and the old dissolved, from March 4 until April 7 without any legislative, judicial or clear executive authority. (The secretaries under the Confederation continued to serve until replaced, albeit without a clear mandate. See McDonald, Randall and other Hamilton bios.) Finally, the electoral votes could be counted, to no one's surprise, and after much negotiation, April 30 was set as Washington's inauguration date, so the government ran with only leftover ministers of doubtful authority for another three weeks, and this during a credit crisis.
The First Congress seems to have assumed the March 4 date for its successors to take office, although it probably mattered little, and the Second passed legislation (1 Stat 241) enshrining it, but specifying no time of day. This could be interpreted as meaning midnight precisely, but I have found no evidence that anyone even considered the issue. This is not surprising, since several related questions were left fuzzy, such as whether the Vice President became President, or merely Acting President, upon death of the Chief Executive. It is hard to characterize something as a controversy if no one was arguing. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that vagueness was part of it; and there should be a discussion of the question in those terms, probably under President of the United States. But a tradition seems to have evolved by the time we are considering that terms ended on March 4, as the document you cite says. " From 1789 through 1937, presidential and vice presidential terms ended on March 4 of every year following a presidential election, a date set by the Second Congress." The Sixty-Sixth Congress adjourned immediately before noon, March 4, 1921, after inviting Wilson as President to send a message; and they had sent him a load of last minute bills to sign, I gather because they expected to be adjourned until December. I'm working backwards; I'll see how far this can be documented. Septentrionalis 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
So, clearly the 66th Congress, at least, felt that congressional (and presumably Presidential) terms continued into the 4th. In that case the term was probably understood as ending upon the swearing-in of a successor. I wonder if there is any instance of a President having himself sworn in at 12:01 AM. And, yes, I missed the fact that the Senate report clearly gives the 4th as the ending date. That's what I get for reading in haste. I suspect, on a priori grounds, that nothing controversial was done on the morning of the 4th of March. Signing bills at the last minute sounds to me like avoiding the messy constitutional question of the status of bills that remain unsigned within the ten day period when a new President takes office. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Your conjecture seems entirely plausible. The notices on Coolidge and Wilson say they spent the morning of the 4th "signing bills", without specifying them. Septentrionalis 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

He was a Quaker. Therefore it stands to reason that he affirmed rather than swore. Why is this so interesting? -- Zsero (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hoover neither said "I swear" nor "I affirm." Hoover did not repeat the entire oath. Chief Justice Taft read the oath, beginning with "Do you, Herbert Hoover, solemnly swear...," to which Hoover replied "I do." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.185.66 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoover in China, again

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

[edit] Somebody please fix this gibberish

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The chicken in every pot? I think not

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

Hoover's campaign used the slogan in 1928 as Hoover claimed credit for the prosperity. I don't see any problem here--everyone knows that campaign ads are written by staffs -- note that today in TV ads the candidate has to say "I approve this ad" (not "I wrote this ad"). Rjensen 08:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that politicians do in fact condone ads which they may or may not personally have reviewed nor in which they themselves make a statement, but the issue I have with the Hoover campaign slogan is that neither Hoover, nor the GOP, nor any subsidiary supporting him actually spoke, wrote, or campaigned using the slogan as written. It has become an amalgamation of phrases that have now become part of popular culture, not an actual campaign slogan. I am only noting this because while conducting research on consumer cultures, this phrase came up in researching/writing. However, citation was difficult due to the fact that Hoover never spoke the statement nor was it printed.--BigboyBrown85 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The slogan was used by the Hoover campaign according to reliable sources. William Safire, Safire's New Political Dictionary -- the standard source-- says (p 117) it appeared in a GOP campaign flier of 1928 entitled " A Chicken in Every Pot." Hoover of course was reponsible for choosing his campaign managers and was well known as a micromanager who looked over everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
Campaigns in 1928 were much different than today; Hoover had much less control over party activities. The connection between "a chicken in every pot" and Hoover can be traced to a paid advertisement that is believed to have originated with the Republican National Committee, which was run in a number of newspapers during the 1928 campaign. Hoover was not personally responsible for the ad, nor did he endorse it or "approve" it.

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

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

[edit] Vandalized?

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

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


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

Reseacher96


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

Reseacher96

[edit] IP deletions

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

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

[edit] Senate seat?

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

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

[edit] herbert hoover----debate

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

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

Thanks!

Reseacher96

[edit] Parents...............?

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

TY!

Reseacher96

[edit] World War II with Hoover

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

Reseacher96

[edit] Humanitarianism

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


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

[edit] I question this article's neutrality!

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

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

38.96.154.84 15:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] New edit with some parenthetical thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Copyvio from archive.org

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

[edit] Extreme Bias.

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

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

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

[edit] Some sections suffer from severe POV and OR problems.

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

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

[edit] Smoot-Hawley Tariff

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

[edit] Doubtful reference to Finnish tribute to Hoover

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Hoover and the US Geological Survey

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