Talk:Theodore Roosevelt/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Childhood nickname

Theodore Rossevelt Son Of FDR. childhood nickname, from his family was actually "Teedie." The more well-known "Teddy" was from his first wife, Alice Lee, and after her tragic death he did not like the nickname and rarely allowed its use. I have edited the article to reflect this, though I only changed the section that began with the reference to a childhood nickname of "Teddy." (see: _The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt_, by Edmund Morris (1979, reprint 2001) 68.213.16.185 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)kep - soon-to-be-registered-user!

Pronuciation of the Name Roosevelt

There has been much debate about the correct pronunciation of Roosevelt's last name, however, in several letters Theodore Roosevelt himself specifies the correct pronunciation. In a letter to the Rev. William W. Moir dated October 10, 1898 he writes:

As for my name, it is pronounced as if it was spelled "Rosavelt." That is in three syllables. The first syllable as if it was "Rose."

Source: Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia, pages 534-535. Available online at http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/

I was more than a little embarassed at a Oct 2006 seminar on Theodore Roosevelt, Adventurer at Dickinson State University when I pronounced Roosevelt's last name multiple times with the long "oo" sound. I was corrected by Roosevelt scholar Clay S. Jenkinson as well as TR's great-grandson, Tweed Roosevelt that the pronunciation is ROSE-a-velt. For the record. SimonATL 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1912 election

Rjensen deleted my submission in regard to Roosevelt's performance in the 1912 election when I said that although he lost it was the best result achieved by a former President who was nominated by another party. Rjensen said it was misleading and asked if it was in comparison to Van Buren and Fillmore. Yes it is in comparison to Van Buren and Fillmore and no it is not misleading. What is misleading is you saying it is misleading. Let's compare Roosevelt's result in 1912 with that of Van Buren in 1848 and Fillmore in 1856. Roosevelt, 88 electoral votes and 27.4% of the vote, Van Buren, no electoral votes and 10.1% of the vote and Fillmore 8 electoral votes and 21.6% of the vote. So what is misleading about all this. Is it misleading because the best result by a former President was actually achieved by Grover Cleveland in 1892 when he actually won. Well I did not count Cleveland because he was renominated by the same major party as before and the fact I wanted to point out was a former President being nominated by a party other than the two majors--The Shadow Treasurer 05:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

comparing TR to unknowns does not help the user. To say TR was "nominated by a party" is highly misleading (he created the party). Rjensen 05:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say "nominated by a party" I said "nominated by another party" meaning a different party from the one before (if that wasn't clear then I apologise). The party still nominated him because it is a formality to do so, so therefore it is not misleading, the Encyclopedia Britannica for one clearly says that the Bull Moose Party nominated him for the presidency. However I do accept the latest edit saying that he won more votes than Van Buren and Fillmore.--The Shadow Treasurer 05:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Why not rewrite so that it's clear that you mean "a different party from the one before"? This meaning was not completely clear to me at the beginning.Smallchanges 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt despised the nickname Teddy

One of the first things someone needs to know who wants learn more about Theodore Roosevelt, is that TR personally despised the nickname Teddy that was given to him by the press. And today, in the 21st Century, one of the surest ways of knowing definitively, that the person with whom you are discussing TR, has only a superficial knowledge of the him is if that person keeps throwing out, Teddy this and Teddy that, so please drop that term and Roosevelt admireres will know you are in their camp. They use it as a gauge of your knowledge. Of course, his own friends, universally referred to him as Theodore. SimonATL 15:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point here strikes me as the problem with this page in general. It is filled with cute little factoids about Roosevelt that are inappropriate for a neutral historical review. While it is great that admirers have taken the time to contribute information to this page, one must keep in mind that the point of an historical biographical article is not to express love for a past leader. The focus of any entry should be on assessing TR's historical and political significance. For example, that he was related to FDR is probably significant, that "Uncle Teddy" gave away the bride at the wedding is inappropriate treakle. I write on this page because I am interested in history and politics. I recognize the importance of TR as a powerful president. I may even admirer aspects of his personality. I do not think, however, that this article should be the depository of the millions of factoids collected by TR's worshipers. nepal tree
While I agree, it's not inappropriate to mention that Roosevelt disliked the nickname, especially as it is very commonly used. By the way, you can sign your name with the time using four tildes (~~~~) which will produce this: Johnleemk | Talk 18:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Philippine-American War

The subjugation of the Philippines is not mentioned. There were terrible atrocities committed against the native population, yet the article only talks about building railroads and fighting yellow fever. By omission, there is a strong pro-imperialist slant to the discussion of Roosevelt's foreign policy, as if we were benevolently bringing "civilization" to the natives. Wikiquote has a number of first-hand accounts of the atrocities committed in the Philippines during the Roosevelt Presidency, which should be mentioned. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

keep the POV out please. The cartoon falsely shows what happened (there were no such executions) and neglects TR's response. This article is on TR's biography. So stick to what HE did and skip the falsehgoods and POV. Rjensen 14:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The cartoon shows what the criticism of TR's foreign policy was. Leaving out the FACT that the military was harshly criticized for atrocities, including the documentation (link to quotations above) of soldiers bragging about atrocities, orders to shoot children, etc. while making the claim that he used "the army as well to build up the infrastructure of the new possessions, building railways, telegraph and telephone lines, and upgrading roads and port facilities," is strongly POV towards American exceptionalism and pro-imperialism. This violates NPOV specifically because it represents an Anglo-American focus, an issue specifically addressed in the standards. The Phillipine-American War lasted the duration of Roosevelt's Presidency. To not even mention the conflict and its critics is just silly, and to leave out non-American perspectives on TR's foreign policy explicitly violates the NPOV standard.Play jurist 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The cartoon did not criticize Roosevelt or even mention him (he had Smith court martialed for ordering war crimes and expelled from Army.) Yes indeed the Army built up the infrastructure--there no POV that says otherwise. The article is about TR -- and therefore has an American slant. The insurrection ended in 1902, unless you want to say it's still going on! Rjensen 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You make one good point: I didn't know about the court martial. I think that the foreign policy section needs to be expanded to include more detail about US engagements, anti-imperialist criticism of Roosevelt's policies, Roosevelt's response, and the perspectives of the people that were targets to be "civilized." My point was not that infrastructure building did not occur, but rather that that is not all that the military was used for. Right now the foreign policy section is a whitewash and directly violates the NPOV standard on avoiding an exclusively Anglo-American focus. You have now admitted the article "has an American slant" (though not the slant Americans like Mark Twain or William Jennings Bryan would give it), yet you accuse me of being POV! Furthermore, the wiki for the Phillipine-American War page says the insurrection lasted until 1913.Play jurist 13:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The right thing to do is just trim the section and move anything excessively detailed to the subarticle on his presidency, which is far too often ignored. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Five paragraphs on a personal expedition to Brazil, but just two on his foreign policy? If detail needs to be cut, there's plenty of fluff in this article. The foreign policy section should be expanded at least to include the Phillipino-American War and mention of its critics.Play jurist 22:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the balance is that there is a long article on TR's presidency that explores policies of his administration. This is a bio and should focus on TR personally. As for the Philippines the insurection was almost over when Auinaldo called his supporters to lay down their arms in April 1901. The US critics were pretty quiet then too, so it does not make for much of a story. Rjensen 14:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't find the other article that you're mentioning. Insofar as this article, the one that most people would find when looking for information on TR including his presidency, has a "foreign policy" subsection of the section titled "presidency," that section should be complete and NPOV. As it stands it isn't complete or NPOV. I'll do some careful research to improve the foreign affairs section to include more information about engagements including the occupation of the Phillipines and the Phillipine insurrection (which continued after the surrender of the Phillipine army), to include reference to domestic anti-imperialist critics of Roosevelt, and to include non-Anglo-American perspectives and I'll update after that research to bring the subsection up to wiki NPOV standards. Your help in fact-checking would be appreciated.Play jurist 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I found the other article. Maybe we can just agree that the subsection on foreign policy in the Roosevelt bio page should stay as brief, but should be editted to be less POV?play_jurist 19:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

New York Governor

Why is so little mention given to the fact that Roosevelt served as New York governor? Loomis51 10:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Youngest President

T.R. actually was the youngest person to serve as President. I reverted the edit by Wally that said he was the youngest President "at the time". This is a common mistake that results from the fact that JFK was the youngest person ever elected President. But when T.R. succeeded to the office, he was younger than JFK later was. T.R. was born on October 27, 1858 and took office on September 14, 1901; consequently he was just under 43 years old (15,662 days old) when he took office. JFK was born on 29 May 1917 and took office on 20 January 1961, and was a little under 44 years old (15,942 days old) when he took office. Mateo SA | talk 22:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Major Clean Up

Reworked the entire article, but didn't add a whole lot, or really remove a whole lot. I did remove this quote below, which is rather nice sounding, but I couldn't work it in.

"There can be nothing in the world more beautiful than the Yosemite, the groves of the giant sequoias and redwoods, the Canyon of the Colorado, the Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Three Tetons; and our people should see to it that they are preserved for their children and their children's children forever, with their majestic beauty all unmarred,"

I'll be back later to add some stuff in. I'd like to get this article up to feature quality. *Kat* 03:16, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'll put my hat into helping (making this article FA has been on my mental to-do list for some time now; T.R. is my favorite president). I already fleshed out his childhood and education - just started with his political career. Some major holes that still need to be filled;
  • his military service; esp in regards to the Spanish-American War ("Rough Riders")
  • The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine/Big Stick Diplomacy (which drove much of his foreign policy)
  • Other things that should be mentioned; the Panic of 1907 and his response and the Gentlemen's Agreement with Japan (I'm glad to see there is already a para on race).
Also, the ==Presidency== section is still a bit of a mess, organization-wise. So many small subsections are not as good as larger subsections of more unified/thematic prose. Dividing between foreign and domestic policy should be enough (along with Cabinet table). If the prose gets too long for a couple to few subsections to hold, then the detailed stuff should be moved to Theodore Roosevelt Administration and a good-sized summary of his presidency left here (ala Ronald Reagan and Reagan Administration). Also the ==Little known facts== section is little more than a place for trivia - that should either be merged into the relevant parts of the article or put into a new section called ==Legacy== along with text from ==T.R. in U.S. culture== (for now, I like the second idea better). What do you think? --mav 01:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

think you sound like you know what you are doing. If you would take the lead in the process of revision, I would be happy to follow. This is one of the first articles that I have worked on and I'm still a little unsure of myself.

I have some information on the Roosevelt Corollary, but it is back in my dorm, and I'm currently home for Christmas.
Some other holes that need to be filled;
What do you think?--*Kat*
Will do and those points are important and do need to be gone into a bit more. What I plan to do is just keep adding more and more from my several sources (the one cited in this article has 20 pages on T.R.) until I pretty much exhaust my sources of encyclopedic info. I will then go through the article and trim it down by moving some more detailed text to other related articles and leaving summaries here. My plan is to get this article in the 25 to 35KB size range but have it still be comprehensive in an encyclopedic sense (and of course have it be good enough to go through the featured article selection process). There almost certainly will be a longish article just on his presidency too. --mav 16:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I managed to add some information about the Rough Riders and Roosevelt's time as the head of the NYC police department today.*Kat* 05:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to this soon. --mav 06:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fathers business is misleading

Currently the artical says this of TRs fathers business:

His father was a New York City philanthropist, merchant, and partner in the glass-importing firm Roosevelt and Son

But the biography I'm reading says that the Roosevelts had investments mostly in real estate and railroads.

This is my first time to suggest and artical change. Can someone verify that this change is needed? Thanks, Gary Setter Gary

This is my source Theodore Roosevelt : A Strenuous Life Copyright 2002 by Kathleen Dalton pages 16-17

"Thee (father to TR) worked in his father's plate-glass importing firm, Roosevelt and Son, where he also managed the family's immense real estate, stock, banking, mining, and insurance holdings. When Theodore was a boy, C.V.S. Roosevelt and his five sons owned Manhattan's Piers Nine and Ten, a farm on Staten Island, land in upstate New York, stock in the New York Central Railroad, and property all over lower Manhattan."

Teddy's father was the Roosevelt who established Roosevelt Hospital, which today is St. Luke's - Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan. In addition, he helped establish the Children's Aid Society. Teddy's son Quentin was the Roosevelt for whom Roosevelt Field in Nassau County, New York, was named. It was named for him because he - and Teddy were instrumental in establishing the field for use by volunteer pilots who served in World War One. Quentin was one of them. The field became an active commercial airfield after World War One, and is today the site of a very large Mall.

CORNELIUSSEON 13:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Turtledove

In Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 alternate history, Roosevelt raised an "Unauthorized Regiment" during the Second Mexican War (1881) and became a war hero. He later served as Democratic President in 1913–21, defeating the Confederate States and crushing Canada during the Great War (1914–17). He was defeated by Socialist Upton Sinclair in his historic run for a third term; he died in 1924 as the most beloved president in recent U.S. history.

What is the relevance of this to a biographical article on T.R.? I am going to remove it, but I am pasting it here in case somebody can come up with a good reason why it should be restored. 68.110.199.122 03:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll leave it. I see it appears under "T.R. in pop culture." I bet this is going to end up misquoted somewhere, with some high school kid saying Roosevelt was a popular Democratic President who helped defeat the Confederacy. Of course, just as likely somebody will quote as historical fact that stuff about Scrooge McDuck. 68.110.199.122 03:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it being under the pop culture section will be a giveaway that its not true.--Kross 04:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Removed enormous image

Excised the gigantic, double-width image of TR's grave marker, as it is already displayed in a reasonably-sized form higher in the article. Russell 05:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Can we remove them? They're an eyesore, and somewhat redundant, seeing as we now have categories. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the succession template for the Progressive Party candidacy (as it seems redundant), and the assorted templates made redundant by categories, as per consensus on FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Spooky Quote

"I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian."

Theodore Roosevelt, 1886

Don't you hate it when someone you respect says something stupid? This is worse than the time my favourite uncle refered to a black co-worker as "coloured"...or when my 60+ year old father started talking about Lindsay Lohan's breasts (with mom in the room)...or finding out that the government that brought in Canada's Indian Act was that of John A. Macdonald (The Act being, essentially, a combination or racism/misogyny/heavy handed paternalism that attempted to force natives to integrate by segregating them and making their culture, essentially, illegal. Moral relativism aside, hell isn't other people, it's the disappointment of finding out people aren't as good as I though they were. Sigh.

Modusoperandi 08:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I figure, were he alive today, he'd have a far different attitude. There's no way I can verify this, of course, but remember that the legacy of manifest destiny was still strong then. Would Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin (a hypocritical abolitionist) have taken different attitudes toward slavery if they had lived into the modern era? People really are products of their time. To expect someone back then to have broken out of the prejudice...it's decidedly rare. Some examples exist, such as a fellow in Spanish Caribbean who owned slaves like Colombus did, but grew disgusted and freed them all (Zinn, Chapter 1, A People's History of the United States.) Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was an imperialist and a Native American Hater, but it wasn't until after the effects of the World War II and the Civil Rights movement took hold that racial acceptence really became the norm, at least in the United States (despite our ongoing legacy.) Also consider for a moment a recent Oprah special, wherein two women from a famous picture (that of a black student attending a white high school and a white student screaming at her, both these students were the women on the show) met for the first time since, and the white woman apologized tearfully. 68.225.242.19 05:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully this means that, as individuals, as nations and as a species we're slowly getting better. Of course this also means that, potentially, we (in 2126AD) will look back at 2006 and say, "Golly, I can't believe that we were that ignorant! It's weird that back then we didn't of the superiority of our alien masters!". Or something like that, I'm kind of hazy on the future: the past, however, is clear as a bell (or would be if I'd been paying attention).
Modusoperandi 09:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up article

I removed the section on Oklahoma, which has nothing whatever to do with TR beyond his nominal signature. I revised the sectiuon on race to emphasize TR believed in Darwinism and the unlimited power of progress. Since TR was one of the major political leaders of the 20c, I added much more on his politics especially Progressivism and 1912. The bibliography must be about Roosevelt, and so I dropped the irrelevant items on other people and added the best books on TR. 67.176.74.236 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Richard Jensen

I've added a cleanup tag since the sections you added contain some POV phrases, consist of very long paragraphs, and are not wikified. Thanks for the contributions, but please go through it and try to improve it according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --tomf688{talk} 23:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wilson's comment

History Channel mentioned in a special on Mr. Roosevelt that he went to Wilson to ask for a commission in World War I, but the president refused and later commented snidely about it. Is this true, and, if so, should it go in? 68.225.242.19 05:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • TR's daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth recounted that, indeed, her father got an appointment with President Wilson where he asked for and was denied command of an infantry division. Division command would have made TR a two-star major general. Can it be any wonder that Wilson, a pacifist college professor, and hardly a TR-style "man of action, would prevent his great rival, Roosevelt from upstaging him. Wilson well knew what happened when TR went off to war the first time and knew that a TR as a returning WWI hero, and that's assuming he survived (probably unlikely given his health and the battlefield conditions with the increased lethality of the machine gun and modern artillery) would be a serious threat to Wilson's chances for re-election

Roosavelt would likely have become president again had he lived to 1920, with or without a second tour of duty.

First President to ride in an Automobile

Just to alert those who are more expert on the subject than myself, but the article on William McKinley, Roosevelt's predecessor in the Presidency, states that he was the first President to ride in an automobile - the ambulance that took him to hospital. Roosevelt's article states that he was the first President to ride in an automobile. Perhaps one of these claims is erroneous?

  • I would agree that one is probably wrong.  :) The only thing I see is that the ambulance for McKinley was electric, and maybe they meant internal combustion here. However, that seems like it's picking nits, and looking at it, even that says electric. Good catch. They can't both be right. I'll remove this one. Wikibofh 14:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • According to the Presidents series on the History Channel, he was the first President to ride in an automobile, the first President to fly in an Airplane, and first installed electricity in the White House (which was known as the President's Mansion before him), although he would never use the switches. I believe it also claimed that he was the first to use some other form of transport, but I can't remember what...
    • According to a White House page the first president to ride in an airplane was FDR. It may be that Teddy was the first ex-President to fly in a plane, but until we have a clear citation let's leave that bit about the planes out. SnappingTurtle 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • TR flew in 1910 or 1911, when he was an ex-president. FDR was the first sitting president to fly.
    • If FDR flew first than I figure I should just get rid of this False info -<Programmer8 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)>- Sorry can't find it. Maybe it is already gone...-<Programmer8>-

Questia links

I've found links to Questia in another article as well, is the number in the URL an affiliate ID? Archer7 13:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

top of second?

"surveys of scholars put him at the top of the second tier." What does this mean? --Gbleem 17:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

understanding of strain

"These simple activities, when characterized as the "strenuous life" are testament to the modern understanding that a man born to privilege in the late nineteenth century has a different understanding of strain than any person who had to "make their own way"." What does this mean? --Gbleem 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


I agree. This comment seems a little critical and irrelevant. I think it deviates from the non-bias goal of Wikipedia. I am going to change it.

Bloco Da Cinza Jan. 4, 2006 17:17pst

King in the Mountain legend?

The King in the Mountain article lists Theodore Roosevelt as being the subject of a "King in the Mountain" legend. I don't see any reference to this in his article. Does anyone know of a legend where Roosevelt would return to defend the nation in a time of great peril? DoctorWorm7 21:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Never heard that one, and I rather doubt anything of the sort would come about in the 20th century. Though if we had to pick a President to be the king in the mountain, TR would be a contender.

splitting the article

I agree the aritcle should be split: the man and then the presidency Hmains 05:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you agreeing with, and why? And there's no point in splitting the article; WP:NOT paper. If you mean using summary style to summarise the various sections while creating subarticles for the full details, then yes, that's typically a good idea. But splitting the article is a big no-no. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I was agreeing with the notice in the article, under the Presidency Section, that reads:
"It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article entitled The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. (Discuss)"
I suppose the idea would be to create a 'Theodore Roosevelt Administration' article, similar to the existing 'Washington Administration' article and others like it and pull most of the Presidency section out of the Theodore Roosevelt article itself. Hmains 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That's summary style, which I support. big Bear in mind that a summary of the proposed article must be retained on this article -- by no means should we have one article on Roosevelt as President and another on Roosevelt's life outside the White House. Johnleemk | Talk 06:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Splitting this article is certainly a good idea, and there are precidents for doing just that. Desmond Morris - who has produced the most complete Bio of Teddy to date, split his bio into two books, The Rise Of Theodore Roosevelt at 900+ pages, and Theodore Rex at 770+ pages. The former covers from October 27, 1858 until September 14, 1901 (the Asassination), while the latter goes from September 14, 1901 through March 4, 1909 (Taft's inauguration).

CORNELIUSSEON 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT paper. Johnleemk | Talk 06:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You mean Edmund Morris - Desmond Morris is an anthropologist and naturalist. I'd like to put my vote in against splitting the article, though I'd support a thorough, though summary style, bit on this page on his presidency with the more detailed stuff presently on this page moved elsewhere. AllanHainey 13:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

African American Soldiers

The references to African American Soldiers present during the Spanish American war - while well meaning and based on much ""documentation" - unfortunately is not fully acurate. Nor, did Pershing have anything to do with all of the African American units that served in the war. I have posted over in the Wikisource area a file from the US Army Center for Military History that has a summary of the Muster Rolls of the Volunteer Army that existed during the Spanish American War, and there are several African American National Guard units on that list, some of which actually left the United States. Not all went to Cuba - some went to Puerto Rico - but these troops were over and above those accounted for by the Regular Army.

Addendum: John J. Pershing, nicknamed "Black Jack", was initially given the decidedly un-politically correct nickname of "Nigger Jack" because of his command of the 10th Cavalry Regiment (Buffalo Soldiers) as a young First Lieutenant.

I would heartily recommend a reading of the Wiki-article on John Pershing--as a starter-- for a cursory coverage of Pershing's actual involvement with black US Cavalry troops.

CORNELIUSSEON 22:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Scholarly secondary sources" and "primary sources"

Can someone please go through these and cleanse them of the POV remarks and standardising the format as per Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style? I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time (right now) or the knowledge of Roosevelt to do this. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

living daughters

what are the names of the daughters of Roosevelt who survived their birth? Hmains 19:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer. TR had two daughters. First daughter - Alice Lee Roosevelt Longworth (February 12, 1884 – February 20, 1980) was his first daughter by his first wife, Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt. His first wife died only a couple days after the birth of her namesake daughter. See the section on daughter Alice that I have greatly expaned on.

Second daughter - Ethel was born of his second wife, Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt. His second wife was a childhood friend that he had known all his life. I'll add more info on her. There's a book called The Roosevelt Women that talks all about these ladies. SimonATL 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

alive or dead

does anyone know if this quote from the article is correct or not:

On January 6, 1919, at the age of 60, Roosevelt died in his sleep of a coronary embolism at Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York, and was buried in Young's Memorial Cemetery. Upon receiving word of his death, his son, Archie, sent a telegram to his siblings, stating simply, "The old lion is alive."

or

should the quote be "the old lion is dead"

This article is subjected to so much vandalism, it is difficult to determine what is vandalism, what is true, what is not.

thanks Hmains 06:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that the telegram was "the old lion is dead". It would make a lot more sense too. AllanHainey 08:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"the old lion is dead" is correct. Also, Roosevelt was 59 when he died, not 60.SimonATL 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New page on Roosevel's mother, Martha (Mittie) Bulloch Roosevelt

Having lived in Roswell Georgia, USA, the childhood home of Roosevelt's mother, Martha Bulloch who was known affectionaltely as Mittie, I added a page on her with photo as well as an additional page on the beautiful Greek revival home Bulloch Hall, also in Roswell GA, SIMONATL 02:07, 01 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:1783.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1783.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Inspiration for Dr. Robotnik?

I heard that a picture of Teddy Roosevelt in his pajamas served as the basis for the character Dr. Robotnik from the Sonic: The Hedgehog video game series. Is this true?

71.194.181.240 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


To be honest, I've never heard of the Roosevelt/Robotnik connection being made before - and personally, I don't even think they look that much alike, apart from the glasses and the fact that they both have a prominent (but vastly different) mustache. I'm gonna have to question the authenticity of this statement; that's to say, the part about Roosevelt being the inspiration, at any rate. H Hog 18:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

trivial firsts

The "firsts" section is a mix of trivia and useless and undocumented. Do we need it? I suggest we cut it to 5 items. Rjensen 06:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think most of them are actually quite significant and should stay in the article. I'm going to delete the one about coming from New York though, since he was the second, not the first. Johntex\talk 06:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The trvia item "TR was the first president born in the second half of the 19th century {1858)." seems to be excessively trivial.... MarcoTolo 04:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

the intro is too short

The article is really great but I would like to see the intro getting a little more expanded. Thank you. CG 21:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

concerning needed citations, Presidency 1901-1909

according to 'Twentieth-Century America' by Thomas C. Reeves, Roosevelt himself "stunned Wall Street" by announcing a suit against Northern Securities Company in 1902, and "During Roosevelt's administration the government started forty-four more suits against corporations, including such combines as the American Tobacco Company, the Du Pont Corporation, and the Standard Oil Company." the wikipedia article says he busted 44 trusts, in which case (and even forgetting the NSC one) it seems the suits filed by the government must have been outright magical in their efficiency? supine 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

John Muir???

There's no reference to John Muir in this article. That seems a little strange. Elijahmeeks 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Response - Good point. Living only 5 miles from the headquarters of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Vancouver, WA, I added sections on Pinchot and Muir. By the way, I can see steam clouds rolling up from Mt. Saint Helen's from my office SimonATL 07:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good! (The addition of Pinchot and Muir, that is, is good... The steam clouds and impending eruption of Mt. Saint Helen's, well, does not sound so good.) Elijahmeeks 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Conservation

This is a bio of TR, and we have to keep that perspective when dealing with conservation. A couple of sentences on Muir and Pinchot should suffice. Rjensen 18:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

More on "Consevation"

I corrected the spelling of conservation. (it was "Consevation") 71.209.156.154 20:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 5 March 2006

In any Bio, Winning the Medal of Honor (MOH) is hardly trivial

The fact that TR's conduct was deserving of this extremely rare formal recognition, despite the controversy, should not consign it to the "trivia" department. That BOTH he and his son got the MOH is a fitting fact for the trivia section. SimonATL 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia and popular culture

I have removed the trivia section from the article. I've merged what I think is encyclopedic and is corroborated by a source to other sections of the article. The remainder, which I feel is either unencyclopedic or is unsourced is below:

  • First president born in the second half of the 19th century {1858).
  • Roosevelt was fluent in several languages including French, German and Dutch. He is said to have read in excess of 40,000 books in English and other languages.

Johnleemk | Talk 18:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have set about dismantling the popular culture section of the article as not really relevant. I intend to include only media which use TR as a major character or have him making repeat appearances. Therefore, the following entries have been removed:

Johnleemk | Talk 18:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing "featured article removal candidate"

Great job John on the re-write - OK - How is this done and by whom? SimonATL 19:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We let it run its course. Eventually someone clearing out the FARC backlog will realise enough time has passed and quietly remove the tag, unless there's sufficient support to delist the article (in which case both the FARC and FA tags will go). Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Roosevelt in the Scrooge McDuck comics

Is a picture of Roosevelt as he appeared in the Scrooge McDuck comics relevant in the article (at the popular culture section)? I actually have the comic but I want your approval before uploading it. CG 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

    • yes that sounds like fun. Rjensen 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it'd be interesting to see how he was rendered as a cartoon by Disney. Go ahead & add it, you might want to note the cartoonist though. AllanHainey 12:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
We'd need to discuss the McDuck cartoons more to qualify for fair use, however. I don't think a couple of sentences is enough to stand up in court if fair use is challenged, and we prefer to be safer than sorry. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking about copyrights, many images in the article don't have a copyright tag: Image:TR the Light Has Gone Out.jpg, Image:TR Buckskin Tiffany Knife.jpg and Image:TR On Horseback Back From Cuba 1898.jpg. Plus some don't have a clear tag: Image:Teddy Roosevelt portrait.jpg, Image:TR & Pinchot 1907.jpg. I hope this issue will be solved soon. CG 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The cartoons all have a copyright tag (and all were published in US before 1923 so their copyright has expired and they are public domain.) Rjensen 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
They were not tagged until I added {{PD-US}} to them. It's just a technicality, really. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Even if these images were PD's they needed tags to indicate that. As for the Scrooge picture, it's better if I don't upload it? CG 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably. If we could get something verifiable and decent about TR, it might be fair use, but it's really tenuous. I think our coverage is sufficient. Johnleemk | Talk 17:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What could possibly be included that would make the image fair use? CG 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
(indent shift) A substantial (at least a paragraph) discussion of the subject of the image. Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry - everything missing

Everything about Freemasonry is completely missing. Sources:

Some facts: Masonic laying of the foundation stone:

  • Army War College february 21, 1903
  • Yellowstone Park (Grand lodge of Montana) april 24, 1903
  • Masonic Temple, Tacoma, Washington May 22 1903
  • Masonic Temple, Spokane, May 26, 1903
  • Officebuilding of the House of Representatives April 14, 1906
  • Masonic Temple 13. Str. and New York Ave. Wash. D.C., june 8, 1907
  • Pilgrim Memorial august 20, 1907

Speech to the Masonic Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania because of the 150th anniversary of the masonic raising of George Washington in 1902

One of the things that attracted me so greatly to masonry […] was that it really did live up to what we, as a government, are pledged to - of treating each man on his merits as a man.

--webmaster@sgovd.org, Germany 84.61.13.103 22:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

TR presidened at hundreds -- probably thousands-- of ceremonies. Doubtless he had nice words to say to all the guests. Biographers do not consider it important and neither should Wiki. Rjensen 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
TR was a freemason like most US presidents were freemasons. Freemasonry is part of the american history including its declaration of independence, liberty and human rights. The Boston Tea Party was initiated by freemasons, Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette and Benjamin Franklin were freemasons. The Statue of Liberty was made by a freemason. Until today a masonic bible is used for the Oath of the president. Is american history trivia, but not the teddy bear?
--webmaster@sgovd.org, Germany 84.61.9.101 08:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Since TR was a freemason, then the article should have a representative comment or two regarding TR's thoughts on freemasonry. After all, this is a bio about a man. It's not like he's opening a new garden club during a campaign tour and makes a few comments about marigolds. Rklawton 18:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences about his Freemasonry to the article. The stuff about laying foundation stones, etc. is really irrelevant minutae for an encyclopaedic biography. Johnleemk | Talk 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Rklawton 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and those international visits of masonic lodges etc.?

Mourning in Oyster Bay

... Colonel Roosevelt was a member of the local lodge of Masons, and never failed to keep up his interest in it. He had made a habit for many years of visiting Masonic lodges wherever he went, as a member of the Oyster Bay lodge, and, returning, to tell his brother Masons here of his visits. He found Masonic lodges when he was in Africa at Mairobe, and in South America he found a lodge on the Asuncion River. The Masons here knew from Colonel Roosevelt of the doings of Masonic lodges in all parts of the world. The members of the local lodge suggested a Masonic funeral yesterday, but this was dropped when the wishes of the family became known. ...

Source: http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/NYTobit.htm

--webmaster@sgovd.org, Germany 84.61.16.74 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


My Great-Great Grandfather

Theodore Roosevelt is my great-great grandfather on my mothers side, and I have a photo ulbum of pictures of him, and its really neat. Amaas120 03:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, and I don't mean to be mean, but what's your point?Cameron Nedland 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Rough Riders

The proper designation of the Rough Riders unit is the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, NOT the 1st United States National Cavalry.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Single Stick

I believe, in addition to his other athletic and combative pursuits he was an ethusiastic single stick fighter. I'll check my reference and add it if I'm correct. Epeeist smudge 10:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes - TR was quite enthusiastic about this and used to fight General Leonard Wood in the White House until he busted up his hands and wrists a lot. Also, he remains the only president to have gotten a black belt - judo while in office. SimonATL 21:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting fact in "Life in the Badlands" section

I'll leave the fixes up to people more capable of handling such vandalism.. as I would imagine it is since:

Life in the Badlands

Living near the boomtown of Medora, North Dakota, Roosevelt learned to ride and rope,and launched a nuclear warhead at bolivia, occasionally getting involved

as far as I know.. There were no nuclear warheads in 1885! I can fix the error but I don't know what the policy on say.. banning the idiot that wrote it.. is. --Jbencivengo 13:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If they had nukes at the time, you know he'd have done it. Gmuir 17:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to determine when the page was last complete and restore it to that state. It is currently very messed up. 207.72.39.89 14:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Taft and Roosevelt I removed one adjective (uncharismatic) and soften another phrase (inept becomes less adroit) in the section about Taft and Roosevelt. TR was a great man with many gifts, but it does not make him stand any higher to sell Taft short.

  • This vandalism business is as stupid as it is a waste of all the great contributors' time. Can Wikipedia block edits by UN-signed in sources? SimonATL 21:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It can, but it won't. This is an isolated problem (only the highest-visibility articles are vandalised regularly), and many of our best editors got hooked on Wikipedia by editing anonymously at first. Johnleemk | Talk 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Reform

Didn't Roosevelt want to institute a moderate spelling reform?Cameron Nedland 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

yes he did, but he took a lot of flak and negative press, some quite funny, actually, and pulled back from that goal. SimonATL 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

1913 South American Expedition

The expedition down the River of Doubt in 1913 was no tropic vacation. It became a race against time to save TR's life and so weakened him that he would not have survived WWI had he been given command of a division by Wilson that he begged for. Had he not made that expedition, he might have been able to win back or at least fight for another Republican nomination. That expedition really changed everything for TR and it is not appreciated enough by the general public. SimonATL 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

TR's Attempt to Fight in World War I

TR's daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth recounted that, indeed, her father got an appointment with President Wilson where he asked for and was denied command of an infantry division. Division command would have made TR a two-star major general. Can it be any wonder that Wilson, a pacifist college professor, and hardly a TR-style "man of action, would prevent his great rival, Roosevelt from upstaging him. Wilson well knew what happened when TR went off to war the first time and knew that a TR as a returning WWI hero, and that's assuming he survived (probably unlikely given his health and the battlefield conditions with the increased lethality of the machine gun and modern artillery) would be a serious threat to Wilson's chances for re-election.SimonATL 14:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

TR and Taft

Removed the reference to Taft as "uncharismatic". Taft was a most engaging person, but of course in comparison to TR, even above average people fade a bit. A reference to Taft being politically "inept" was softened. It does not diminish Roosevelt's greatness to be fair to his heirs and assigns. Markp6

Roosevelt's Firsts

I am not familiar with wiki so I am just letting you know that Roosevelt's firsts are listed twice:

4.4 Presidential firsts; 9.2 President firsts

Take care!

Thanks. I think somebody reorganised the article, but I cut out the section at the end. That was just a pitiful trivia list. It is much better off as prose. Also, whoever is removing footnotes: STOP. It is not very clever. Johnleemk | Talk 03:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
all the footnotes to Thayer have to be removed. That book is not recommended for users--it's a potboiler. The information is covered MUCH better in the other bios listed. Rjensen 04:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a source, not a recommended book for further reading. It corroborates the article content, and that's all that matters -- anyone who wants to know where we got tidbit X can find it thanks to the footnotes. Anyone who wants an in-depth biography can look up any of the real books listed in the references section. If you want to destroy this easy way of corroborating the article content (the purpose of which is to assure readers that no, we did not make it up), you sure as hell had better get to work replacing them with the appropriate footnotes for those books. Also, the footnotes that were removed had nothing to do with Thayer's book -- they were an integral source for the legacy section. Johnleemk | Talk 05:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
why believe what's in Thayer when nobody else trusts the book? answer: T=hayer is online (because he's out of copyright). That's not a strong basis for an encyclopedia Rjensen 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're implying that the article contains inaccuracies, excise them. Otherwise if the portions of Thayer's book that are cited are accurate, what's there to complain about? Most of the content in the article is not even based on Thayer's book -- Thayer's book was cited because it is an easily accessible source for most of our readers, who can immediately check to see that no, we did not pull X out of our asses and that at least someone else from a century ago said the same things we do. Besides, if the other books are greater sources, why not replace the Thayer citations with them (with page number, etc.)? Thayer's book is poorly written -- I never denied that. But it is easy to look up, and none of the crap in it was used to write the article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Great--we're in full agreement about the Thayer book. I'll get some better references to Harbaugh or Brands that will be more useful to people. Rjensen 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I notice that while Thayer is still cited in the references nowhere does it say what book of Thayers is cited, at least I can't find it. You should correct this & make it clear what book you're actually citing (I don't know so can't add it) while it is still referred to. AllanHainey 08:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This really ticks me off -- it's supposed to be mentioned in the first footnote that references Thayer but SOMEONE removed it. I'm in no mood (and don't have the time) to find out whoever's been removing these footnotes, but I have a lot to tell them... Johnleemk | Talk 17:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's the 1919 bio by Thayer-- a "quickie" published soon after TR died and not based on research. Rjensen 09:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt was the first President to wear a necktie for his official portrait, a tradition which all of his successors followed. Is this statement true? I saw Benjamin Harrison using his necktie for his official portrait. That should be Ben the first. Klewung

Roosevelt's Influence on US Naval Growth

I used to think that TR's attitude was largely the result of his being influenced by Mahan. But when I did more homework on the influence of his family, including his mother and Bulloch uncles, and actually read TR's Naval History of 1812, I realized that Mahan's book only gave more force to what TR already knew - A world power without maintaining a worldwide navy will not stay that way. He was also well aware of the growing strength of the Japanese navy in the East and argued for the annexation of Hawaii because he knew that Japan coveted the islands for both commercial as well as military purposes. What TR understood so completely was reinforced on December 7th, 1941 and the US has, for the most part, maintained a dual ocean Navy ever since. SimonATL 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Patent Falsehood about TR

An anonymous editor had the audacity to claim that TR was fired from his post as Asst Secretary of the Navy. That "ignorant" edit was changed. In fact, on the internet you can find a facimile of a letter written by the Navy Secretary in which he thinks TR was just being idealistic and made a big mistake RESIGNING his post as asst secretary. The so-called historian, simply lumped TR into the category "imperialist." That betrays only a superficial understanding of this complex man. His post was removed, but not by me. SimonATL 15:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Theodore, Eleanor and Alice

It has been said many times that Theodore in a way never forgave his daughter Alice Roosevelt's birth for the tragedy of his first wife Alice Roosevelt. The two had a tumultous relationship during her childhood years. What is really strange though is that his brother Elliott really sank into depression after his marriage to Anna Hall and more so after the birth of Eleanor. Why did Theodore seem to show more interest in Eleanor as a child and adult and treat her in many ways more like his own daughter than he did his real daughter Alice? The circumstances between both Alice Roosevelt and Elliott seem ironic and paralleled each other, and each involved a child. Eleanor, however, was able to be forgiven or perhaps was never held accountable at all while Alice was never able to reinstate herself. Are there any explanations to this? Centers 12:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Most historians do not psychoanalyze TR in this way. Brands argues that it was Alice who was the problem child--the would be princess who could not adjust to her father. Eleanor was another matter--a psychologically frail child who needed TR's protection. [Brands 520] Rjensen 06:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...valid point. It's really sad and ironic at the same time that both girls really never had the opportunity to truly know their father. I wonder though if TR had any idea that by showing favortism towards a child that did not live with him or was even his own that he was creating tension between the two girls that would vent in some very interesting ways in years to come. Centers 16:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Alice, though, as his sister Bamie receded from the picture due to illness, TR turned to Alice more and more and they became much closer after 1910 than they had ever been in Alice's childhood. In fact it was Alice who advised her father against running against Taft and compounding that by running on the Progressive ticket. TR would later admit that Alice had been absolutely correct. I think he began to realize that she had incredible political instincts. Unfortunately, they were Machiavellian, in that she completely understood the weaknesses in people and how to exploit human fallacy. She would have made an excellent modern "dark" political operative such as are used by both Dems and Pubs nowadays. SimonATL 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
As I was reading an article about Theodore's sister, Corinne Robinson, there was a sentence that stated that at a house party given by Corinne in which TR and ER were in attendance that there was some tension that developed between the two of them. This was said by Corinne's grandchildren so I wonder if this statement holds any water. In fact, I'm not sure that any of Corinne's grandchildren would have been old enough to remember such an event. ER at this time still had not come out of her shell so I don't see how much she could have actually known about politics before 1919. 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Something that is really interesting to me is when ER came out of her "shell." Had TR still been alive would she have likely campaigned against her cousin TR Jr during his governorship campaign in NY in 1924? The way that she trampled on fame and success may not have been looked on as admirable by Uncle Ted. Centers 01:14 2 Aug 2006 (UTC)

Martial Arts

Throughout all or my research of Roosevelt, it has been said that he practiced boxing, wrestling, judo, and possibly aikijutsu. However, this page says he practiced jujutsu, which I have not been able to find anywhere. The S 19:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

TR his friend, General Leonard Wood were fond of the martial art and sport called singlestick and used to emerge from a contest quite bruised from their rounds. TR went blind in one eye as a result of a boxing blow although this was kept quite secret at the time. SimonATL 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism

T.R. had some rather unflattering things to say about Native Americans. However, his opinions weren't particularly out of line with the times. Even so, I think his comments should be presented in context within the article. I'll provide the quotes and sources in this discussion page when I'm not falling asleep at the keyboard. In the mean time, I thought I'd solicit opinions regarding appropriateness and article section. Rklawton 05:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree that we should consider TR's comments both on Native Americans (savages, etc.) as well as his thoughts on African-Americans within the context of his times. He was neither an "Indian Hater" nor a "Bigot." It would be absolute nonsense to link him with such folks who said of them, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." TR well understood that a large degree of their control over their own lives as well as their ability to roam North America, uncontested except for inter-tribal conflicts had passed. Yet, without a doubt, he also understood that these "red man" were part and parcel of the "American Story" as well. He actively recruited them to his "Rough Rider" regiment. He knew well their celebrated ability with horses, guns and all the substances of their environment. Also re African-Americans, while he was paternalistic like most abolitionists, he was, in fact, as his father was, absolutely opposed to the ownership by one man over another. He spoke out against lychings and was the first sitting president to host an African-American, Booker T. Washington, an act called a "damnable outrage" in the South and for which TR was called a nigger-lover and other even more hateful names. SimonATL 17:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent points. Historical context is very important, and I'd forgotten about Booker T. Washington. The "Indian" quote goes as follows:
I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. (speech made in 1886)
Scholars have made close study of civil rights progress by following the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court. I think we could also learn a lot about studying the actions and speeches of American presidents as well. In short, I'd like to see a civil rights section in every presidential article. Rklawton 18:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeschooling

While Roosevelt may not have attended public or private school, calling his private tutoring "homeschooling" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Private tutoring bears no resemblance to homeschooling as described in the homeschooling article. Indeed, the homeschooling article lists private tutoring as an alternative to homeschooling. I suggest we consider revising this bit of information to more accurately reflect Roosevelt's privileged upbringing. Rklawton 18:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

fact is he was schooled at home in a situation almost identical to what is called home schooling (TR's parents did it not private tutors). The Homeschooling movement of 2006 tries to distance itself from the upper class, but that is its peculiar POV and we should not change history to reflect that POV. A leading biographer says: "The most obvious drawback to the home schooling Roosevelt received was uneven coverage of the various areas of human knowledge." T. R.: The Last Romantic by H. W. Brands Page : 49. Rjensen 18:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Great! Here's two independent inconsistencies that we'll want to clear up. First, the TR article states that he had private tutors. You assert that he did not. If you are certain, then please revise the TR article. I'd be surprised if he didn't have private tutors, but I have no sources that point either way, and I'm quite happy leaving that bit of research up to you. I certainly won't contradict your findings. Second, the homeschooling article differentiates itself from private tutoring. If homeschooling includes private tutors, and I agree with your POV concerns, then we should tag or edit the homeschooling article accordingly. I think this is reasonable because homeschoolers often rely on outside resources - and these may include topical experts, and that starts blurring the private tutor line. If you are sincere in your desire to retain the "homeschooling" label and link, then I'll be happy to edit the homeschooling article accordingly, and I may require your support. What say you? Rklawton 19:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
TR had private tutors esp in language and literature, but his parents seem to have been about as active as they. The boy in many ways was self educated (by age 15 he knew more biology than his tutors or parents and maybe more history). Yes the home schooling article needs changes and I will support changes there. They have not thought about the issue for 1880 which is what the TR article deals with. The point is the parents did NOT send him to fancy private schools which were numerous in NYC area, because they felt they could do better at home. Rjensen 20:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears we're of the same mind on this matter. It seems you are more famaliar with this matter. Will you make the edits when you have the time? I'll keep an eye on any objections other editors might raise and support your efforts. Rklawton 00:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
OK-- I made a few changes to homeschooling article (and added a critical bibliog.) Rjensen 01:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
We should also remember that TR's father was of sufficient means to take the children to see the Egyptian temples, pyramids, the Theodosian walls in Constantinople, the Acropolis in Athens, (if I recall, humm, have to doublecheck that) and many other places first hand. It was no accident that one of TR's professors at Harvard, in exasperation, said to TR, "See here, Roosevelt, I'm teaching this class." TR had to be tutored in math and Latin, because he was difficient in them and he never mastered either Latin or Greek, which, actually NOT the norm for children who went to good private schools. As one who likes to sit in book stores and compare Caesar's Commentaries in Latin with several histories of him in Greek, I lament that he didn't have that exposure. He would have enjoyed it. Well, he would have later - wading thru the actual classes, for me, at least was painful to say the least. Veni vidi, vinci, good grief, I hated it then, but appreciate it now, only in hind sight. I didn't have a "choice" there but was in a private school where Latin was mandatory. SimonATL 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

TR Family Wealth

Another interesting subject is the difference between the wealth of the New York City Roosevelts as compared to their Hyde Park cousins who were far far wealthier.

The Hyde Park Roosevelts made their wealth by being among the first people to open China to US trade. This brought them wealth on a scale many more times than the NYC Roosevelts, who, while wealthy from dutch glass importing, were no where nearly as rich. When I explain it to modern-day children, I tell them that I'm exaggerating but to condider the Hyde Park Roosevelts billionaires and the Roosevelts of NYC mere millionaires. That makes the point for the kids.
TR lost most of his own personal inheritance when a blizzard of 1886-1887 wiped out almost his entire herd of cattle in his ranch out in the South Dakota Badlands. From that time on, (to our immense historical value) he had to suppliment his income with writing. He had already authored the best account of US Navy actions in the War of 1812 to date, while still a student at Harvaed. SimonATL 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Roosevelt ordered eradication of wolves from American soil.

Why is this not even mentioned in the article? Roosevelt is directly responsible for nearly driving this animal to extinction in America, and he is praised as a conservationist??!! What insanity - the man was anything BUT a conservationist.

Concerned about dwingling mammals, Roosevelt founded the FIRST US national hunters club, the Boone and Crocket Club in New York City. In a time when Americans thought their Natural Resources virtually inextingusable and unlimited, he was the first president to see the END of these resources if the polices of his time were continued and actually proposed what was, in that time, the absolutely shocking proposition that there HAD to be planning on resources such as metal ores and coal, precisely because they were, by definition finite. Believe me, NO American political leader had even yet considered such a concept. Roosevelt was thinking well into the future here. In fact, he organized the world's first national Conservation Conference, personally signing invitations to all the govenors of US states and territories, the entire US Congress and 500 of the Nation's top scientists, scholars, engineers, journalists and other experts. He was 100 years AHEAD of the crowd. One of the chief reasons he attempted to regain the Republican nomination is because of a complete roll-back by President Taft of all of his conservation policies beginning with the firing of Gifford Pinchot. No, he was way out in front of his time. And without his efforts, what's now Yosemite National Park would be a privatly owned tourist facility with hotel for the idle rich as would Yellowstone and virtually all the great US National monuments. When the Congress attempted with legislation to ban his setting aside national forests in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming without approval, he put left the bill unsigned on his desk until he had created the rest of the Northwest's present major national forests... and only THEN did he sign the bill that would have gone over his veto, thus negating the very intents of the lumber and mining interests against the larger American public. I could go on and on about this man. He was the PRE-eminent conservationist of his day and who actually introduced the word into common American usage.
But Roosevelt, in his day, did NOT know what we know take for granted about so-called predators such as wolves, that they actually increase the health of the species they prey upon through their natural culling out of weak animals.
That Roosevelt seemed to be anti-wolf which simply reflected the popular sentiment of his age that ignorantly believed wolves nothing but purely destructive and had to be erradicated as a danger to man, cattle and sheep. Don't demand that the man understand his his day what almost no one but some aboriginal native Americans knew at that time. Today, ask any rancher north of Yellowstone Park about wolves and you'll get the same response in the year 2006 that Roosevelt might have echoed in 1906.
Speaking of Yellowstone, without Roosevelt's protection of Yellowstone Park and its one remaining "large" herd of bison, and the only herd larger than 50 in the US, these magnificent creatures and many others better protected in the new national parks that he created, might have gone the way of the passenger pigeon and the dodo bird.SimonATL 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Information or Hero Worship?

This article is certainly chuck full of information on TR, but much of what it says comes off like hero worship. For example: "He possessed one of the most energetic and dominant personalities of any leader in American history, and is enshrined with Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln on Mount Rushmore." Or even better: "Mark Hanna was the rival power in the Republican party, but Roosevelt artfully pushed him aside and lined up enough delegates to assure himself of the 1904 nomination." These are but two examples of how this entire page suffers from a general tone of praise that detracts from an objective view of an extremely important President. There is no way to verify how a President had the most energetic personality. Furthermore, to say that Roosevelt "artfully" removed a challenger without elaborating on how, leaves the impression that the writer simply approves of this act, when there might actually be an interesting story of how Roosevelt was a manipulative and sly politician. But lines like that sanitize what was perhaps skilled, but most likely typical political manuevering

I feel that in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, posts on historical figures should present as objective a view of the subject as possible. History should be a critical investigation of people and their actions not a nostalgic cannonization. Nepal Tree

I agree. The only reason I have been reluctant to raise this issue in the past is because I don't have the time myself to fix the article up thoroughly (yet again...). While we should all appreciate the efforts of TR's fans, the article's prose in the past bordered on praise, and currently it seems to be indeed somewhat of an acclamation of the man. Let his achievements speak for themselves. If we must have words like "artfully", let us attribute them to notable historians or biographers - not ourselves. Johnleemk | Talk 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, when I was a kid and learned about Mt. Rushmore with TR alongside of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, I questioned why this was so. Was he put there by political cronies? How could this man, linking 19th and 20th Centuries even be considered to be in their league?

Well, in the last 5 years I've learned why he earned that place. In study after study of US Presidents TR is consistenly placed in the top 4-5. Some of these studies were based on extensive polling of recognized history, political and policy experts across the USA. The guy was no "near" great, he WAS great, pure and simple. A 1000 hours of study only reinforces this, for me personally. Hero, no - human yes. Competent, yes. Prepared by a host of experiences, public office, thousands of books studied. And a mind? Here was a man who, while running for governor of NY was reading a book on Greek philosophy in German. Who amazed a visiting group of German businessman by quoting page after page of Schiller, Goethe, ect. He did the same for the French philisophes and Dante in Italian. This guy had an A plus plus plus mind but, unlike so many brainiacs, he had a lot of horse sense, too. When an anti-semitic preacher came to NYC to inflame opinion against the Jewish folks, as Police commissioner, he assigned a Jewish Sgt and 40 Jewish police officers to guard the guy till he made a hasty retreat to Europe. The guy was truly amazing, warts and all. A rare combination of intellect, character, personality, wit, and childlike infectious enthusiasm. Even his enemies would leave his office shaking their heads at his boyish enthusiam, his sincerity. Unlike his cousin, FDR, he didn't say one thing and do another in the character department. TR didn't sleep with mistresses, or his private secretaries and he had actually loved his wife and and was devoted to her and to his children, although he wasn't always a good listener nor was he always "there" for them. He didn't know how to handle his daughter, Alice, but there's a story with that aspect too. In short, he didn't have a public and private morality. But, he was often blind to other people's needs and it was probably difficult for him to stop talking and acting long enough to actually LISTEN to people, but that was the way he was. SimonATL 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like someone to make the case that TR did NOT "possess one of the most energetic and dominant personalities of any leader in American history." I suggest you check what his contemporaries said of him. He had his faults to be sure, and sometimes confused his desires with what was best for the Country, but PLEASE, the guy was one strong and powerful personality. NO one who met him or worked with him came away any other opinion. In fact, he was SO dominant as to really offend the sensibilities of people such as Henry Adams. Say what you want about the guy, but FORCE and PERSONALITY he had in abundance. Even his bitterest foes gave him that much. He had his warts, to be sure. His treatment of the African-Americans of the 26th Infantry was totally unfair. He split his own party in attempting to wrest the nomination of Taft. And in so doing, TR broke the heart of that warm and gentle, legal and physical giant of a man. But energy and personality, please. He dominated the American National political landscape from 1900 to 1908. The Republicans gave up trying to find a replacement for him after his first term replacing McKinley, so popular was he with the vast majority of Americans. And, his own Republicans called him a traitor to his class for his progressive initiatives in New York Assembly, as US Civil Service Commissioner, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, as Governor of New York and finally as President - and why, because, paraphrasing a NY reporter, "Here is a man who can't be bought and cant't be intimidated." I wish the US could produce such a leader with his positive traits minus the negative. The US DESPERATELY needs COMPETENT, TRAINED, VISIONARY and SELFLESS NATIONAL LEADERSHIP! You know, I think I really like that old lion. As his military aid, Captain Archie Butt said to TR's wife when she noted after Taft took office that her husband would have to learn to go by the name MR. Roosevelt like any ordinary gentleman, Butt replied, But he ISN'T an ordinary gentleman. No he wasn't. He was simply EXTRA-ordinary. SimonATL 07:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Your comments certainly make clear your appreciation for TR. But you seem to miss my point. Many believe TR was one of the best presidents, many believe his was the most dominant and energetic personality. However, unattributed comments like that have no place in historical analysis. If his contempories have things to say that will back up the contention that his was a dominant and energetic personality, then those contemporaries should be cited. A president can be powerful, important, even great, and still be a flawed individual. We are all done a great diservice when hero worship is disguised as history. We need not make TR seem better than he was to understand his importance and his place in history. Consider Lyndon Johson. He was a racist corrupt politician from Texas. He used the word "nigger" freely infont of the press and in discussion with colleagues. He called his aging african american driver "boy." Yet, as Senator and as President, Lyndon Johnson played the most important role in giving birth to Civil Rights legislation in 1957 and 1964. He also elevated Thurgood Marshall from his position as lead counsel for the NAACP to the position as Solicitor General, eventually nominating him to the Supreme Court. Understanding the flaws of an important historical figure forces the reader to engage with the complexities of the time. A great leader is also likely to be an average person with his own prejudices and foibles. We gain nothing by sanitizing the negative aspects of a person's character. History should not agrandize past leaders. It should reveal, through critical analysis, details that help us understand what has come before and how that has affected our lives today. Nostalgia and hero worship are not history. ````Nepal Tree
As for TR's drive, energy and forcefulness, that's not unattributed, virtually everyone who met him or dealt with him attested to those traits, friend or politcal foe alike. They are personalty traits and not necessarily the so-called "stuff of greatness." When I comment on them, I'm not hero worshipping the guy. I'm speaking of his widely attested character attributes, traits shared by not only so-called "good" historical figures but so-called "bad" ones as well. Hitler had similar traits I attributed to TR. Let's distinguish better between traits and praise. SimonATL 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Nepal Tree, but would add this: I personally think TR is great, enjoy reading about him, etc. But inserting breathlessly vague and unprovable prose about his "greatness" is not the WP way. At the very least, those sorts of statements must come from historians. And even then, it isn't always appropriate. I could, for example, go over the United States of America article and insert tons of stuff about America being the greatest country that's ever been, and have a lot of notable people supporting me in that, but you all can see how wrong that would be, right? I've taken some of the more hysterical bits out, I'll scan it later when I have more time. IronDuke 15:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, mate. Simon, the issue isn't about describing Roosevelt in such a manner. The issue is that we are implicitly endorsing such a description. This violates WP:NPOV. However, it is neutral to write that many historians consider Roosevelt to be such and such (provided we have a reference for it, of course). If we could address this issue, the article would be less about hero worship and more about providing a balanced synthesis of what people consider Roosevelt to be - which is, after all, what an encyclopaedia article is about. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
To discuss these traits is to describe traits attributed to TR by friend and political foe, alike and not to pass so-called "value judgements on them." I'm going to add a new article, "Theodore Roosevelt Traits - as personally described by those who knew him." How people felt about Roosevelt that knew him personally, is a matter of public record. See the Roosevelt Cyclopedia at the Theodore Roosevelt Association Web site for description after description of him by those who knew him. SimonATL 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

SimonATL, I saw your edits to my edits of the Panama Canal section. I never said anything about stealing. I simply added a bit more detail about the United States' acquisition of the rights to build and control the Canal. I appreciate the even greater detail that you supplied about U.S. negotiations with Colombia. Nepal Tree

Nepal Tree - Sorry, I overreacted a bit. It bothers me how rivisionist historians talk about the Canal "theft." The US had a signed treaty with Columbia not Panama. It had been Columbia not the US that first proposed the sale. All the Columbians had to do was deal in good faith and do what they said they had intended to do in the first place and what's now Panama would probably still be Columbian property. Roosevelt and SecState Hay were actually surprised by the inflexibility of the Columbians with their "all or nothing" approach because the Columbians certainly well knew that their most neglected province was champing on the bit for independence and that there would be little the weak Columbian government would be able to do if the US supported a new provisional Panamanian government. So, it was more the Columbians losing than the Gringos "stealing" the Canal. Roosevelt only wanted the Canal, not really on a mere Jingoestic pretense, but to help the US Navy move back and forth between oceans. He also knew the obvious economic advantages. Its interesting that Panama was actually the original second choice of the US Isthmisian (sp?) Commission. SimonATL 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line: there is too much of the whiff of hagiography in this article (and it's "Colombia", eh?). This piece clearly steps over the NPOV line all over the place -- though it's clearly not the worst example of that problem on Wikipedia. Fact is, all the 'real facts' around the life and times of T. Roosevelt can be presented without resort to a (too-common on en:WP) pro-U.S., pro-imperialist context; and so this article can be redone a lot better than it sits at present.
AFA this article stands now, it comes off too much as a labor of love from the U.S. militarist Right (maybe the Democratic Party branch rather than the Republican one. But still.) Since politics is mostly about lying about intentions and realities, of course it's difficult to reach a wholly objective stance which will eventually satisfy every single POV. But try a little harder here.
Pazouzou 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Some ground rules

We're going to need to lay down some ground rules or else we'll end up working against each other on this article. Right now I see some major problems:

  1. Excessive sections; we don't need one whole section on the TRA, nor do we need one whole section on Roosevelt's reading habits.
  2. Too many pictures. I find that they make the article crowded and a bit difficult to read. The Wikimedia Commons is for pictures, not Wikipedia.
  3. Informality - why do we keep referring to Roosevelt as TR? There's no good reason for this.
  4. Trivia - we don't need a whole section for this. Trivia is generally unencyclopedic and a sign of poor writing. If something is worth including in the article it can be incorporated into the article body. It should not need its own section. My recent edit did just this.
  5. Subarticles? IMO, some sections, like the South American expedition, are too long and excessively detailed. The typical reader won't be that interested; couldn't we just create a main article for the expedition for the interested scholar, and have a summary here for the average reader?

Just some thoughts. Johnleemk | Talk 07:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Some good points. I suggest the South American Expedition be spun off as separate article. I would keep the pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) . 08:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the initial photos make sense. Remember that many people will come to this article as a starting point and they might not even know a dang thing about Wikipedia Commons. Most don't know about the commons, they hear about the general Wikipedia on-line Encyclopedia. SimonATL 04:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Teedie

I've tried several times today to make a simple change to this article, to reflect that TR's childhood nickname was "Teedie," not "Teddie." People keep reverting my change and calling it vandalism. I was just correcting a typo, not asserting a substantive change (or so I thought).

It's been suggested that I provide references for the change, so that it will be accepted. Not sure how to provide conclusive support for what I previously thought was common knowledge (at least to TR fans). A simple Google search for "teedie roosevelt" demonstrates it pretty conclusively, but so do any number of biographies about the man. Any suggestions as to how I'm supposed to "prove" this fact to you all would be welcome.

I should also note that I never ran into this kind of problem as an unregistered user. I thought the principle was that inaccuracies would be weeded out, not in. My point being, whoever made the knee-jerk change back to "Teddie" could not have had any dependable citation support for that change (because it's factually inaccurate)--thus the process worked backward. Azaner 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

TR's childhood nickname was Teedie. For references (other than being a lifelong TR fan, he is my favorite president), how about The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris, on page 4 it states:
""When he reappears in the family chronicles ten months later, he has acquired a milk-crust and a nickname 'Teedie.'..."
Or for another how about H.W. Brands TR: The Last Romantic, page 9:
"But it was Theodore - or Teedie, distinguishing him from his father, also Theodore..."

Prsgoddess187 00:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the article already stated that Roosevelt's childhood nickname was Teedie. Why was this removed in the first place? Johnleemk | Talk 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:TheodoreRooseveltFamily.jpg

Has this photo been colored from this photo or is it, as the caption suggests to me, scanned in from a color photo?

If it's an original color photo (as opposed to a recolored one) then I, personally, think the color one ought to replace the black and white one in this article..TerraFrost 01:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was recoloured. Most colour photos from the period are recoloured; I doubt a postcard company would expend significant effort to take and publish a colour photo for their postcard(s). Johnleemk | Talk 15:09, 8

June 2006 (UTC)

It was what they called in the early 20th Century a "tinted" photograph which was hand-tinted to make it more appealing in the days before color photographs. SimonATL 04:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor NPOV Edit

I deleted the line:

"The laws helped the large meatpacking and food processing firms shut down small, unsanitary competitors."

In it's place I put "These laws provided for labeling of foods and drugs, inspection of livestock and mandated sanitary conditions at meatpacking plants." From what I understand the laws had an impact on the large firms as well as the small ones.--adamatari 00:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Bailey Quote in Intro

I was about to edit this quote out but want to discuss it:

"Historian Thomas Bailey concludes, "Roosevelt was a great personality, a great activist, a great preacher of the moralities, a great controversialist, a great showman. He dominated his era as he dominated conversations....the masses loved him; he proved to be a great popular idol and a great vote getter." [1]"

The inclusion of this quote strikes me as a thinly veiled attempt to slip in a sentiment that had previously been debated and refuted. The fact that a history text book writer said this about Roosevelt in 1966 is not relevant to a discussion of him in 2006. The comment is itself a part of history. Academic analysis of historical figures changes quickly from decade to decade, the discipline of history itself has changed drastically since in 1966. Thomas Bailey may have influenced a generation of AP high school history students, but his 40 year old comment serves no legitimate purpose here. If historians are to be quoted here, they must be contemporary academics alive and publishing today. Nepal Tree

The Bailey quote is pretty solid analysis by a leading expert. In fact an expert on presidential greatness. It is not true that the "discipline of history has changed greatly" in its analysis of TR. For example, as Historical rankings of United States Presidents demonstrates, his ratings bu scholars have gone up not down since then. That's solid evidence, in contrast to personal POV. Rjensen 05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not refuting that Roosevelt continues to rank as one of the most important presidents. He was one of the most important presidents. However, I am making few points here that are slightly more nuanced than saying he was "great."
1. There is no body of historical analysis called "Presidential Greatness." Presidential historians may be asked to rate their favorite presidents, but that is not historical analysis, it simply of list based on the personal opinions of historians.
2. The fact that TR continues to rank in the top 5 indicates that he is an important president. It does not indicate that historical analysis on him has remained consistent since 1966.
3. Historical analysis has changed on all fronts since the 60's. The historians of 1966, including Thomas Bailey, produced analysis that must be considered in light of the prevailing societal norms and views. For example, in the 1950's and 1960's Thomas Jefferson was considered an important president, and certainly without any doubt he is. At the time, very little scholarship on him focused on his slave owning or the children he fathered with one of his slaves. The Civil Right's movement of the 1960's-70's changed our society. In particular it changed academics. As more African Americans entered academics and brought a new perspective to hisotrical analysis, Jefferson's relationship to slavery became important. In the last 10 years, especially, historical analysis on Jefferson investigates more deeply his feelings on slavery and his practices as a slave owner. This takes nothing away from the fact that he was brilliant, an important presdient, and one of the most important intellects of the Revolution. It does however, force readers of history today to grapple with the complex fact that a great mind who worte eloquently on the inallienable rights of human liberty also held hundreds of other human being as property.

Likewise for TR. In the mid-20th century, not long after his face was carved in stone along with Jefferson's, TR was remembered for being a strong president who asserted a new foreign policy for the US. In 1966, the US was involved in Vietnam, and continued to act covertly in Latin America to thwart popular uprisings and democratic movements that would interfere with US Business interests. People generally still accepted an interventionist foriegn policy that interfered in the internal movements of other countries, as benign. As the student the 1960's became academics in the 1970's and 1980's they too brought sweeping change to historical analysis. Roosevelt's foriegn policy is still regarded as important and significant, but it is not necessarily celebrated as a wholly good thing. In the current post-Colonial era, Manifest Destiny in general and Roosevelt's foriegn policy in particular, are viewed with a different filter and are charcterized by many as colonialism by a different name.

4. "Greatness" is a mushy concept that can not be accurately gauged through academic analysis. "Improtance" and "significance," however, these are concepts that can be decided upon through analysis.
5. Use of an historian's quote, particularly this outdated quote, does not mean that you are avoiding POV. We previously debated the appropriateness of a statement about the "greatness" of TR's personality. Their seemed to be a consensus that it was not appropriate to use such a statement in a wiki article. Digging up the comments of an historian from 1966 that tends to bolster your personal opinion of TR as "great" is still POV. Nepal Tree
Yes there is a historical specialty dealing with president and their evaluation. U Kansas Press specializes in it, andthe SSHA has a panel on the topic this fall (on which I'm a commentator). The Bailey quote does not evaluate TR's policies, which seem to annoy Nepal Tree for reasons unknown. It evaluates his personality and public persona. Rjensen 20:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to get snippy Rjensen. I clearly acknowledged that there is an historical specialty that deals with studying presidents. I said that I know of now body of historical analysis called "Presidential Greatness," as you referred to Bailey as an expert on that particular subject. I have no issue with Prof. Bailey or his quote. I have an issue with the way it is used here to bolster what seems to be your POV that TR was "great." This is a biographical article and should remain neutral. It should not be celebrating how great TR was. People can draw that conclusion for themselves if they wish to. This article should stay focused on the details of TR's life and presidency and the effect that he and his policies had on the government and the nation. It should not be an article that conveys the feelings of those who worship TR for his personality and his "greatness."
If the point of the SSHA's panel is to determine who were the "great" presidents based on personality, then I do think that is a trivial pursuit. As for the Universty Press of Kansas, they have published one book called "Presidential Greatness." It is the work of two historians. One book does not a speciality make. In fact this is what the University Press of Kansas has to say about their specialties. "The University Press of Kansas publishes scholarly books that advance knowledge and regional books that contribute to the understanding of Kansas, the Great Plains, and the Midwest." Their web page also mentions "More specifically, it concentrates on presidential studies, military studies, American history (especially political, cultural, intellectual, and western), U.S. government and public policy, legal studies, and social and political philosophy." (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/press.html) Yet, nowhere does it say that it specializes in "presidential greatness."
The study of presidents is important and legitimate academic work. Rating presidents according to their personalities, however, is fetishistic and trivial. That doesn't mean it is bad, I just don't think it has a legitimate place in a neutral wiki article. Nepal Tree
I'm happy to report that U Kansas Press is the #1 scholarly publisher in presidential studies (by far). They have a remarkable series of major books on (nearly) all presidential administrations. The SSHA panel will explore how historians evaluate greatness. Bailey is a serious scholar and he DISAGREES with TR's policies, esp foreign policy. But the issue is TR's personality. It was the dominant American personality of the early 20th century--really nobody comes close. Writing that statement in 2006 a historian would not drop anything but would add something on TR's masculinity, saying he was a great proponent of the strenuous life and helped redefine the meaning of masculinity (in terms of strenuous sports, cowboy role, combat role). Some non-historians may think rating presidents is trivial--but then that's just uninformed POV that we Wiki editors have to avoid. (better look at the bibliography to the Rankings of Presidents article before rejecting scholarship as trivial.) Stick with the consensus of the hundreds of historians who have worked on TR. Rjensen 02:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
You know what Rjensen, you're correct. I just shouldn't bother having an opinion, because I don't have a ph.d. By the way, as the title of this page is "discussion" it would seem appropriate to express my point of view. And another thing, if you are going to insult me, why can't you just do so using the second person?
I don't know if you are not capable or unwilling to take in my points. Clearly, U Kansas Press specializes in Presidential scholarship, I indicated as much. What they do not seem to specialize in is "Presidential Greatness." I still believe that exploring how a historian evaluates a leader's greatness is not terribly important. Look, I read presidential biographies. I love learning about a president's personality and personal life. IT is extremely interesting to me to know how they behaved and how they got their policies enacted. MY POINT, however, has always been that a wiki article about any president should be limited to a presentation of facts and not opinions about that president. You and I argued over the "dominant personality" comment about a month ago. You seemed to have edited it out and then recently replaced it with Prof. Bailey's comment. In doing so you are still managing to express your POV. Finally, the consensus of hundreds of historians can still amount to a trivial pursuit. It is not bad, and frankly, I am personally interested in how certain presidents are ranked. But the way you use these tidbits of trivia from Prof Bailey and the rankings article conveys to the reader a POV that the writer of the article likes TR. That is not neutrality. AND THAT IS MY MAIN POINT. If you respond to me, I beg you to address that point. Nepal Tree
I just reviewed the discussion page and realized that I was debating the "dominant personality" comment with Simon ATL and not you, Rjensen. My apologies for that mistake. All other points remain the same. Nepal Tree
T Roosevelt had two aspects: A) an above-average president in terms of policies and programs. B) the most influential and dominant personality of any major figure of the 1880-1930 era. The quote deals with the second issue, not the first. The quote represents a general consensus among historians--I cannot think of a single dissent. Therefore the quote is not POV. It does NOT suppress critics who disagree that 1) Roosevelt was a great personality, 2) a great activist, 3) a great preacher of the moralities, 4) a great controversialist, 5) a great showman. 6) He dominated his era as he dominated conversations....7) the masses loved him; 8) he proved to be a great popular idol and a 9) great vote getter. There are no such critics. Bailey does NOT say that his foreign policy was great, or his domestic policies. (A 2006 rewrite would surely add something about masculinity--that's what is new in historiography.) Rjensen 07:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I reread the quote in light of the information you have provided. I understand your point and will concede that the use of Bailey's quote does not necessarily convey POV. I have, however, edited the section to make it clearer that Bailey's comments are dated. I will still argue that relying on the comment of one historian, made 40 years ago, has the potential to convey to the reader that the editor of the article shares this agrandizing beleif. It is the agrandizement that I think we should avoid. But I am tired of arguing over it. So I will concede. Of greater significance, I introduced the qualifying phrase "For what it is worth" to the sentence on how surveys have ranked him. That way it becomes clearer to the reader that while there are surveys that rank him this way, there is debate as to the value of these surveys. Furthermore, it makes plain to the reader that the wiki article editors do not necessarily agree with or rely on the survey to support their personal feelings about TR. I do not feel that the study of history belongs to elite academics. I still hold strongly to the point that a consensus among a few hundred academics does not mean it is of any great significance. Pity the trivia section was removed, as TR's ranking in the survey most appropriately belongs in that section.Nepal Tree

Roosevelt's Letter of Resignation as New York City Police Commissioner

To The Mayor. April 17, 1897

My dear Mr. Mayor:

I herewith tender you my resignation to take effect on April 19th, in accordance with our understanding.

I wish to take this opportunity, sir, to thank you for appointing me, and to express my very deep appreciation of your attitude toward me, and toward the force, the direction of which you in part entrusted to my care. We have been very intimately associated with your work and I know, all men who have been associated with you do know, the devotion with which you have given all of your time and all of your efforts to the betterment of our civic conditions, and the single mindedness with which at every crisis you have sought merely the good of the City. I have been able to work so zealously under you because you have never

<page break>

required of me but loyal service to what you conceived to be the best interest of New York City, and I well know that had I followed any other course it would have met with instant and sharp rebuke from you. I know also the almost incredible difficulties with which you have been surrounded, and the impossibility of your acting so as to please every one. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the people are now realizing that you have given us far and away the best administration which this City has ever had. In this Department we, as well as you, have been hampered by unwise legislation, and the so called bipartisan law, under which the Department itself is administered, is of much absurdly foolish character that it has been impossible to achieve the results which would have been achieved had you had your hands free with reference to your appointees, and had your appointees in turn possessed full and proper power over the Force

<page break>

Nevertheless, very much has been accomplished. For the first time the Police Force has been administered without regard to politics, and with an honest and resolute purpose to enforce the laws equitably, and show favor to no man. The old system of blackmail and corruption has been almost entirely broken up; we have greatly improved the standard of discipline; we have preserved complete order; and we have warred against crime and vice more effectively than every before. The fact that we have come short in any measure is due simply to the folly of the law in which deprives us of the full measure of power over our subordinates which could alone guarantee the best results. We have administered the civil service law in spirit and in letter, so as to show that there is not the slightest excuse for wishing to get rid of it, or for claiming that it does not produce the best possible results when honestly enforced. About two-fifths of the patrolmen have been appointed by us under the operation of the civil service law, and they make the best body of recruits that have ever come into the service.

<page break>

This is about four times the number of appointments that have ever before been made in the same period; and we have also made many more promotions. On promotions and appointments alike we have disregarded wholly all considerations of political and religious creed; we have treated all men alike on their merits, rewarding the good and punishing the bad without reference to outside considerations. This was the course followed so long as the Brand had control over all promotions; and it has been followed in the promotions actually made. I have joined with Commissioner Andrews in refusing to take part in any I have refused to take part in any effort to promote men or appoint them on other terms. I can not resist expressing my appreciation of the high-mindedness, disinterestedness, courage, and fidelity to duty which Commissioner Andrews has brought to the performance of every official action.

During my terms of service we have striven especially to make the Police Force not only the terror of the burglar, the rioter, the tough, the law-breaker and criminal of every kind; but also the ready ally of every movement for good. One of my pleasantest experience has been working with all men, rich and poor, priests and laymen, catholics

<page break>

and protestants, jews and gentiles, who are striving to make our civic conditions better, and who are striving to raise the standard of living, of morality, and of comfort among our poorer less-fortunate brethren. We have endeavored to make all men and all societies engaged in such work feel that the police were their natural allies. We have endeavored to make the average private citizen feel that the officer of the law was to be dreaded only by the law-breaker, and was ever ready to treat with courtesy, and to befriend any private citizen anyone who needed his aid. The man in the ranks, the man with the nightstick has been quick to respond to our efforts, quick to recognize honesty of purpose in his superiors. You have in the police force a body of admirable men, brave, able and zealous; under proper leadership, and under a proper law they can at any time be depended upon to do the best possible work. I have bitterly regretted that the law under which the force is administered is so bad that it has been impossible to make of this splendid body of men all that could be made if the Board had a responsible head, with complete power, and absolute single-mindedness of purpose to do right.

Again, thanking you for having appointed me, and for your treatment of me during my term of service. I am, with much gratitude and great respect

Very truly faithfully yours,

(signed) Theodore Roosevelt


COMMENT - For the record. Also - The purported "original" letter is up for sale on Ebay for $8,499,99 and the URL is:

here

and if it is the original as opposed to a earlier copy, its quite significant, historically, I'd think. SimonATL 11:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt - Not Great? - Gimme a Break & TR Movie

If the term greatness has any meaning as applied to US Presidents, it applies to Theodore Roosevelt. With Roosevelt as the Time Magazine June 26th Cover story and featured historical character, even the editors of Time Magazine have figured that out as have Karl Rove and George W. Bush. Greatness does not imply human perfection. Like anyone, Roosevelt had some basic character flaws and blind spots, but none of these diminish his achievements for greater good of his country for the most part, and the world in other ways, and such achievements are the mark of that nebulous characteristic, "greatness."

By the way, a movie based on the Morris book, "The Rise of President Roosevelt" is in the works. Leonardo DiCaprio is slated to play the role of a young and spindly Teedie. SimonATL 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

United States Secret Service

A small bit of historical trivia worth mentioning, you may be interested. I would not consider this irrelevant minutae, and I would ask that a webmaster or editor add a sentence or two addressing this topic (perhaps a relevant picture as well?), as I do not trust my own internet and editing skills to even touch the Theodore Roosevelt page.

I just wanted to share with you that I believe Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to be assigned full time protection detail by the United States Secret Service on a 24/7 basis. This occured in 1902 in response to President William McKinley's assassination in 1901 (This can be confirmed at Wikipedia's Secret Service page). In addition, while participating in an internship in the summer of 2006 at a Secret Service office, I noticed a great deal of old photographs of Theodore Roosevelt during his presidency with early 20th Century style federal agents (Secret Service agents no doubt) standing by his side. However, prior to Roosevelt, President Cleveland was granted part-time protection from the Secret Service due to death threats made upon his family back in 1894. Thus, Cleveland was technically the first president to have any official protection by the U.S. Secret Service, and Theodore Roosevelt was the first to be granted full time protection by the same agency. I received this information from "Moments in History, The United States Secret Service" by Donna R. Lohr U.S. Secret Service, published in PDF Format, no publication date could have been found. If you ask for a copy I may be able to e-mail it. BScharlach 18:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I inserted a sentence under "Presidential Firsts" regarding the Secret Service. I hope no one objects. Again, please refer to the Secret Service page or here if you you disagree, I'm interested to see arguments. BScharlach 16:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing Sections

For some bizzarre reason, the entire text, between "Presidential Firsts" and the 1912 election, while showing up in the edit code, is not showing up in the article. I am going to attempt to correct this, but right now am completely clueless as to how this can be. Unschool 01:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I figured it out. Some editor was entering links prefaced and followed by the code < ref >, except there was no space between the sympbols and the "ref". I had to place the spaces in there, or else everything else I wrote here would not show up. Very strange. Is this an old Wikipedia practice, or did they get the idea from some other wiki? Unschool 01:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No reason to remove Mort Kunstler painting

Some editors have announced that this painting was not put in the public domain. OK, but I got personal permission from Mort's Studio by email authorizing us to put this promotional graphic of his painting on "Great White Fleet Sails" on wikipedia. Isn't permission of the author enough? Not only that, the graphic is a promotional one from Kunstler's Studio Web Site.SimonATL 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Niece Eleanor

If Uncle Ted was so affectionate towards is niece Eleanor then why didn't he make more efforts to ensure that she had a fuller childhood instead of one of insecurity, abandonment and aloneness? It seems that she was completely abandoned and was not given any major attention by the Roosevelt's until she returned from England in 1902. Apparently, the main significance he had in her life and is most remembered in her life for is having given the bride away to FDR in 1905. 11:24, 01 September 2006.

TR was right in the midst of his rise in political power as president and pretty much filled with that aspect and the attention that came with it that he basked in. It seems to not had much in the way of close relationships with either Eleanor nor even his daughter Alice until adulthood. I'm not sure he knew how to relate to EITHER nice little girls like neice Eleanor or tough little rebels like Alice. SimonATL 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cougar Knife-Fight

I've heard that Theodore Roosevelt once knife-fought a cougar. Can anyone verify that?

While out West, probably hunting with a friend or supporter's his dogs, the dogs treed a cougar which lept down on the dogs. A great big fight ensured. TR was concerned that the cougar would seriously maime or kill the dogs, so jumped off his horse, waded thru the hunting dogs, kicking them out of the way until he reached the cougar and killed it with a hunting knife. See Edmund Morris and Other Biographies. SimonATL 21:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent 10 minute video on TR and Conservation

In 2006, a group of American high school students developed a 10 minute video on Roosevelt's conservation legacy with the help of Roosevelt scholar, Ed Renehan and Tweed Roosevelt. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCxf9eYWiaM


This article makes no mention of Roosevelt's racism against the Buffalo Soldiers. Indeed, the Rough Riders were a ragtag bunch of wealthy youngsters who did next to nothing; the Buffalo Soldiers did the lion's share of the fighting in that particular battle, and were given no credit by TR. Indeed, he actively derided and lied about them, telling the public that they had been cowards-- in contrast, of course, to the "brave" Rough Riders.

Your point about the Buffalo Soldiers isn't factally sustainable. The same point was made within months of the Spanish American War. Theodore Roosevelt even added an appendix to his book "The Rough Riders" to discuss such notions. TR's own words below hardly manifest "hatred or derision" toward's the African-American "colored troops" as they were known at that time. Here's Roosevelt's own words. Where's the racism? Parenthesises are mine:
"The Tenth (African-American Buffalo Soldiers) Cavalrymen were deployed in support of the First (Regular Calvary), though they mingled with them in the assault proper; and so far as there was any difference at all in the amount of work done, it was in favor of the First. The statement that the Tenth Cavalry was better trained than the First, and rendered more valuable service, has not the slightest basis whatsoever of any kind, sort, or description, in fact. The Tenth Cavalry did well what it was required to do; as an organization, in this fight, it was rather less heavily engaged, and suffered less loss, actually and relatively, than either the First Cavalry or the Rough Riders. It took about the same part that was taken by the left wing of the Rough Riders, which wing was similarly rather less heavily engaged than the right and centre of the regiment. Of course, this is a reflection neither on the Tenth Cavalry nor on the left wing of the Rough Riders. Each body simply did what it was ordered to do, and did it well. But to claim that the Tenth Cavalry did better than the First, or bore the most prominent part in the fight, is like making the same claim for the left wing of the Rough Riders. All the troops engaged did well, and all alike are entitled to share in the honor of the day." Source: ["The Rough Riders"] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SimonATL (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Governor and VicePresident

There are no sections on his being Governor of New York, or Vice President of the United States. Only a single paragraph used to segue from the Rough Riders section to the Presidency section.It seems we're overlooking two quite important offices (and the 1900 election), especially when other, minor, aspects of his life are covered in some detail. - Matthew238 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

TR the Conservative

the article talks of TR in radical ways. Yet he was a conservative. He said "the only true conservative is the one that looks to the future" and he also wrote letters to his friend and brother in law about "my style of conservatism" YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

Yes Roosevelt was a conservative but not in a reactionary old world way at all. He was more of a traditionalist. He felt that while some people rose to be the "ruling classes" or "patrician class," he felt that the best way to get to that point in society was by merit and not by wealth or privilege by itself. He also was not adverse to change. He felt that one of the most unique aspects of the American Experience was the fact that the United States was a land of opportunity where someone could "make himself" into anything he had the talent, will and persistance to be. He was NOT in favor of strict reactionary class distinctions at all. His experience in the Badlands where he got to work with so-called "plain folks," ordinary ranchers and cowboys exposed him, for the first time, to the essential geniuis of the American experience where every man and woman had equal worth under the law and under the stars over the prairie. As president he advocated a "square deal" which amounted to social justice and fundamental fairness between classes and between management and labor. SimonATL 20:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That was very well written. I didn't know the Dakota Territory had that much influence on him. RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

American Patriotic Mythology

The second sentence of this article reads "Roosevelt is most famous for his personality; his energy, his vast range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his “cowboy” persona."

Anyone not brought up steeped in American patriotic mythology will stop reading at this point. Wikipedia articles should attempt to maintain some objectivity and try to avoid local nationalism. Kjb 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

people can stop reading history at any point, but if they read history they should get used to historical understanding. Those who think he's most famous for dealing with the anthracite strike will discover it is also covered. Rjensen 08:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A Response . Roosevelt's self-image was simply that he saw himself precisely as a masculine man and from his time out in the US Western Badlands as a rancher and cowboy, he wasn't "playing" at being a cowboy, he was, in fact, precisely that. As a rancher with thousands of head of cattle, Roosevelt slept out under the stars with his cowboy employees, endured their physical hardships, road herd on his cattle, particated in all the aspects of so-called "cowboy life." He was almost killed in a cattle stampede. His experience was totally UN-like modern politicians who "pretend" to be cowboys, when they have no actual experience, put on a cowboy hat, jump on a horse and get their photos taken. The Roosevelt connection to the "cowboy experience" is not mythological, its factually and historically verifiable. He also wrote of his experience in the late 1880s for Eastern Magazines and compiled those experiences into a book, "Hunting Trips of a Ranchman. He was also a student of US Western expansion publishing a 4 volumn history, "The Winning of the West", Volumes 1-4. I attended a symposium at Dickinson State University on some of Roosevelt's cowboy experiences and would be happy to discuss.
Re Roosevelt's masculine self-image. I suppose that was influenced by such things as the following:
Born a sickly asthmatic who was routinely beat up by bullies but overcame physical limitations, took boxing lessons, puggle stick lessons, learned to shoot and ride both English and Western saddle, climbed to the top of the Matterhorn in France just for the fun of it, courageously fought political corruption in New York City, NY State, in the federal civil service, led his men in a frontal assault on Kettle Hill in Cuba as the only exposed man on horseback, was the first American President to get a martial arts blackbelt (judo). Waded into a pack of yelping hunting dogs that were fighting a mountain lion and kicked the dogs out of the way, stabbed the mountain lion to death with his own hunting knife. Yes, I think he probably falls under the masculine category as opposed to the "ythological" masculine category. Of course, precisely what constitutes masculinity is another debate. SimonATL 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As to his Roosevelt's patriotism. Consider this - In 1917-1918, although in his mid 50s, sickly with a host of physical problems including a failing heart, TR volunteered raise a Division of Infantry and to personally lead these Americans into battle in France in the 1st World War. He knew full well that he would probably not survive this experience. While the meaning of patriotism is open to discussion as well as the topic of patriotism as mythology, suffice it to say that Roosevelt loved his country with a passion that even his political enemies could not decry. SimonATL 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
In the last decade or so historians have spent a lot of attention on TR's masculinity. He became a major role model, and gave many speeches and talks on how Americans must avoid be soft and sissified. see the recent article: Fehn, Bruce. "Theodore Roosevelt and American Masculinity." in [OAH] Magazine of History 2005 19(2): 52-59. Issn: 0882-228x Fulltext in Ebsco Rjensen 21:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Anyone mind if I add this quote?

I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.

This was said in 1897 just before the start of the Spanish-American War. I think it's significant as it gives insight into his character. Richard Cane 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Where would you put it? Gdo01 23:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of just creating a quotes section and adding it there. However, I could put it in the Assistant Secretary of the Navy paragraph which is already small. Perhaps expand "Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the Spanish-American War" with "Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the Spanish-American War and was an enthusiastic proponant of testing the U.S. military in battle, at one point stating "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one" Richard Cane 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds legitimate to me if you put it in a logical place, and have a source. Newyorkbrad 23:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll use these two links [1] [2] since one has the quote in an easy to find page and the other provides the full context in a huge glob of text. Richard Cane 00:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't be here

"he pulled so many progressives out of the Republican party that it took on a much more conservative cast for the next generation."

The party was already conservative (reactionary actually), so was Teddy (he certain style of it anyway). He didn't pull anybody out. He also rejoined it during the wilson administration YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

It belongs because it's what historians agree on. (See Gould's history of GOP (2003) p. 192 for example--he's leading TR expert) TR pulled enough Republicans out that Wilson won election twice. Rjensen 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
And some of them stayed out; as is attested by Harold L. Ickes, who was one of them. We should mention LaFollette, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't read Gould, he is partisan. Just because what "contempery experts" agree on doesn't mean its right. That was for one election. Not two. Teddy rejoined the fold in 1916. This is not for the next generation. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Wiki's goal is to reflect the best historical scholarship--as represented by Gould and the others in the bibliography. Rjensen 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

GOP

Why use the nickname? Why also have GOP as a new Wiki-link when Republican has already appeared? It just causes non-American users to have to look it up to find out whether Teddy Roosevelt changed from being in the Republican Party to being in something called GOP? Shouldn't an encyclopedia use the proper names for things thoughout, or should articles about the Atlantic Ocean occasionally refer to it as the Pond and New York as the Big Apple just to make it interesting. JMcC 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

the term GOP is heavily used and is not sland or obscure; anyone interested in TR should become aware of that. reading Wiki is an educational experience. Rjensen 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

This paragraph:

"Roosevelt understood the strategic significance of the Panama Canal, and negotiated for the U.S. to take control of its construction in 1904; he felt that the Canal's completion was his most important and historically significant international achievement. He was the first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize, winning its Peace Prize in 1906, for negotiating the peace in the Russo-Japanese War."

Why are these two things in the same paragraph?

-- >FrozenFood< 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the burial plot photo

Thanks Shadow2700, whoever you are. SimonATL 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

McKinley's Death and the Journey to Buffalo - Correction?

Roosevelt was hiking on Mount Marcy in the Adirondacks (not giving a speech in Vermont) when he learned McKinley was on his death bed. Roosevelt was rushed by a series of stagecoaches to North Creek train station. At the station, Roosevelt officially learned that he would be the next President of the United States. From North Creek, he continued by train to Buffalo. Please see"The Accession of President Roosevelt" Do you think it could be changed? Thank you. Armandaia 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bully Pulpit

I was slightly disappointed to find that this article mentioned practically nothing about Roosevelt's belief of how the President should use the power of the office to be a leader of morality, enacted in what has been called the bully-pulpit. I think some words on this subject are essential to the article as it spoke to his personal beliefs as well as how he acted as president. Wazi 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)