Talk:Theodore Roosevelt/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"leader of the Republican Party"

This part seems misleading. His name doesn't appear in the list of Republican Party chairmen, and the only party leadership position he seems to have been is in New York's Senate, as a Minority Leader, at one point. Perhaps this part should be changed. 24.151.113.86 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"leader" is not a formal title. It designates the most powerful man controlling the party. For example, TR selected his aide as chairman of the Republican National Committee [George B. Cortelyou] and forced through his personal choice for nominee in 1908 (Taft), even though Taft had a weak base of his own. Rjensen (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

External Links

I recommend adding the following sites to the list of External Links (Resources)

Theodore Roosevelt Center - http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/ Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt - http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/

(Almanac Guru (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Almanac Guru)

article needs shortening

The article is 121 KiB long and Wikipedia recommends that articles not be longer than 100 KiB because of download speed and browser limitations among significant numbers of users. So the article should be trimmed by at least a sixth and preferably more, perhaps by half, since in subsequent months editors will tend to add content, so there should be room to add into. The method of trimming is to move content (including references) into other (shorter) articles or to find that the content is already elsewhere that users will find, and to link to the other articles. A shortcut for this kind of trimming is to create articles by moving whole chunks out of here and into the newly-created articles, if such other articles don't already exist. When a section is deleted from this article, it's helpful to readers to leave behind a sentence or so summarizing the removed content and linking to its new destination. This allows keeping the article well-written with a flow that helps readability. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

good idea. for starters I trimmed 1000 words--mostly long non-encyclopedic quotes about his emotions that are repetitious and unnecessary. Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice progress. The article is now at 111 KiB. I don't have the topical expertise for this. Can anyone else shorten some more? Nick Levinson (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe his early life and early career could be moved into its own article, because most people looking him up would do so for his Presidential service. That move would reduce this article's length by about a quarter, bringing the length down to 90 KiB, just a little within the maximum recommended length. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

that's already been done--we have a separate article on Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt Rjensen (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How about a separate article on the post-presidency of Teddy Roosevelt? Purplebackpack89 06:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's OK right now. Browser speeds are going up rapidly and the guidelines are a bit dated. Rjensen (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I was suggesting moving the pre-Presidential content out (most of it), not moving the Presidential content, because readers would look in this article mainly for Presidential material, so Presidential material should stay. But moving the post-Presidential material out, too, would help nearly as much. That would leave the focus on the Presidency and some context before and after. Moving both pre- and post-Presidential content out would shorten the article by about a third, bringing the length down to about 75 KiB, certainly acceptable.

If the concern is that moving both pre- and post- out would make this article almost redundant of the existing Presidency article, then have this article point into other articles on all things TR. In that case, this article would have mainly short coverage on every major aspect of TR.

If the Presidency article gets too long, parts of that can be moved into their own articles, too.

Speeds are faster on faster computers, but lots of Wikipedia users don't have those. My 2GHz laptop is slow enough on some pages to be noticeable.

Thanks for your work, either way. That's why I was asking if any other editors would like to pitch in, too. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

outdent] Breaking up the article is not a good idea. People need an overview of a very complicated and important life. If necessary a few people can wait another ten seconds to get it. (While waiting for the file to load they can start reading it!) Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying the fate of the battleship Maine

I'm afraid I couldn't master the template I needed, but I'm hoping someone more skilled than I can straighten it out.

I changed the text to reflect that the Maine was destroyed in the harbor of Havana, rather than within the city itself.

The destruction of the USS Maine (ACR-1) was used as a pretext for the initiation of the Spanish-American War. While it is possible that it was blown up by a mine, the possibilities are at least as likely that a smoldering coal fire, the result of spontaneous combustion deep in a bunker in damp bituminous coal, heated the bulkhead between it and the ship's magazine, causing powder to ignite. Such US Navy bunker fires were unfortunately commonplace. There were doubts from the first about its cause, and the first assessments of the explosion had a bias toward it being caused by a mine, to retroactively provide a casus belli. Subsequent studies were not definitive and researchers have remained ambivalent.

There are copious references reflecting the various analyses at the "Battleship Maine" Wikipedia article itself.Activist (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Stamp issue date is wrong (illustration caption)

The date the blue 5-cent stamp came out was 1922, not 1925. I changed it in the file info but obviously cannot change the article itself. This is a minor point, but we should strive for maximal accuracy.

All philatelic sources online confirm this, e.g. here:

http://album.dweeb.org/pages/1922_1.html

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Regular_Issues_of_1922-1931#Stamp_charts

Tulliux (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Tulliux

John Muir

There should be mention of John Muir's influence on Roosevelt while camping in Yellowstone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.35 (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2011

In the section "Cowboy in Dakota" you should add that he wrote three major works while he was in the West which were, "Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail", "Hunting Trips of a Ranchman", and "The Wilderness Hunter" (Morris 338) because none of these works are mentioned in this article.

Morris, Edmund. The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Random House, 2010. Print.

Burgimay (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Roosevelt's main political party

Wow, I noticed this article is semi-protected and unable to be edited by users that are not on some pre-authorized list, so I was unable to make a "bold" change.

Republican ought to be what it says next to political party, while Progressive (1912-196) should be under other political affiliations.

What matters was the Party he identified with in the position that he is best known for; President of the United States. Someone has taken it upon themsleves to list him as a Progressive, when in reality during his times of service to the national government he was a Republican. Let's have it right please.

Why should his party say "Progressive" when throughout his 2 terms as President, his time in the New York Governorship, and other important times in his political life he was identified as a Republican? It shouldn't. YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

quite correct--I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

National memorial and island

Unless I'm mistaken, this article doesn't mention Theodore Roosevelt Island or the national memorial located there. I think it should be listed in the "Memorials" section. Powerfuller (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Taft And Roosevelt

I do believe that Theodore Roosevelt and William M. Tweed did have a relationship between each other while in office, am I correct? I can't find the details, but I do believe it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grievous-Is-Mine (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the smut that appears at the beginning of the article on Teddy Roosevelt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.146.240 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Large Error in name pronunciation

This may not have been noticed, but there is a large edit at the top that may need to be changed. I suggest someone with an account get this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.7.9 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The last president who was worth a damn. The hell we should pronounce his name properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.125.27.220 (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

unsourced genealogy

I suspect the "ahnentafel" requires sourcing as it is presented. Collect (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Note: This comment applies to the numerous articles in which the same or similar genealogy has just been placed. Collect (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

invalid citation 7

The citation for the claim that "Despite his illnesses, he was hyperactive and often mischievous" is citation 7. I looked at citation 7 and it's an article that mention Theodore Roosevelt once, and all it says is that he was tone deaf. I don't think that this is a valid citation that proves that he was hyperactive and mischievous despite his illnesses.

136.152.187.238 (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering his later affiliations

This passage seems way out of place and is not cited: "out of Harvard, he was elected to the New York State Assembly, where he became a leader of the reform faction of his Republican party (the "GOP")."

The (the GOP) should be gone, can someone with more authority either tell me why this is there or remove the reference?TauntingElf (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The "GOP" is the nickname of the Republican Party, then and now. Rjensen (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Tattoo?

Did TR have the family crest tattooed on his chest? I read this elsewhere, but not from any authoritative source. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Pertinent links

I think this page should contain at least one link to his father's (Theodore Roosevelt, Sr.) Wikipedia entry. I could not locate such a link. I suggest: Theodore's father, known in the family as "Thee"... Maybe I just missed an existing link; sorry. Okita2 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It's there - look in the "Childhood" section — Zaui (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Square Deal

"Roosevelt coined the phrase "Square Deal" to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair share under his policies" I don't doubt that he used, and is famous for using, this expression but I don't think he 'coined' it. In fact it is a Masonic term. Square dealing, on the level, etc are all masonic terms. Referring to use of levels and cutting square. 'Getting a square deal' was code to tell someone that he was talking with a mason.

Of course these expressions are now used widely, but they were originated by masons. PeterM88 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction of the comparison of Theodore Roosevelt with John F. Kennedy vis a vis ages when sworn in.

The comparison to President Kennedy is incorrect in stating that there is a "year" between their ages at their taking office. TR was born October 27, 1858, and took office September 14, 1901, so he was 42 years, 10 months and 18 days old when he took office. JFK was born May 29, 1917, and was sworn in 1/20/61, so he was 43 years, 7 months and 22 days old at the time. It is therefore correct to say that TR was younger than JFK was when he took office, "by about nine months."

The article correctly makes the point that while TR was the youngest man to serve as president, upon McKinley's death in his case, JFK is the youngest man to ever be elected president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdmoss (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"First Marriage" and "The Naval War of 1812" as independent headings and not subheadins to "Education"?

I find it a little confusing that "First Marriage" and "The Naval War of 1812" have been placed under "Education". Chronologically they probably belong there, but I think they ought to be changed to independent entries. K. S. Jensen (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Done and done XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request December 5, 2013

I have found (regarding 1901, when President McKinley died):

"he received another telegram informing him that McKinley had died a few hours earlier"

Please insert a comma just after "telegram". Otherwise this can be interpreted as his receiving TWO telegrams (an earlier one and this one) about McKinley's death having occurred a few hours earlier. 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request December 5, 2013

In World War I section, I see this photo caption:

"President Theodore Roosevelt addressing a crowd of supporters in Allentown, Pennsylvania, 1914."

Please insert "Former" at the start of the caption. Although "President" is sometimes used for former Presidents, this does come after he had ceased (March 4, 1909) as President (and then losing, as the Bull Moose candidate, in the 1912 election). 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

1912 election

This article says "Taft became the only incumbent president to place third in a re-election bid." Didn't John Adams place third to Jefferson and Burr in the electoral college (not the popular vote)?

75.23.112.10 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead editing needed

Based on a review of WP:LEAD and comparison with other Presidents with FA and GA ratings, it appears to me that the lead includes much detail that belongs (and is repeated) in the body of the article. Assuming there is no objection, I would like to proceed with an edit to shorten and improve the lead accordingly. Hoppyh (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Go right ahead XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

the lede should tell the readers what he is famous for, & what his positions were. Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Relatives available in other articles

I have removed the following detailed family info since it is available at his father's article: Two of Thee's brothers were philanthropist James Alfred Roosevelt and politician Robert Barnhill Roosevelt. Hoppyh (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The following detail is at the mother's article: Two of Mittie's brothers were Civil War Confederate veterans Irvine Stephens Bulloch and James Dunwoody Bulloch. Major Bulloch was a grandson of Governor Archibald Stobo Bulloch and nephew of Senator William Bellinger Bulloch. Patsy was the youngest daughter of General Daniel Stewart and Sarah Susannah Oswald. Sarah's brother Thomas Hepworth Oswald was the patrilineal great-great-grandfather of assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Hoppyh (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Status

I've noticed this used to be FA, but has lost that status. What can we do to at least get it up to GA? @Rjensen:, @Hoppyh:, any suggestions since the two of you have lately been quite active on the article? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

the lede is too short and too weak--just a catalog of positions held. It needs to tell more about his importance in history. I will work on it. Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am at the beginning of a read of Brands and will be editing/cleaning up as I progress through the book. Procedurally, I think the first steps toward a rating are a request for a copyedit and a peer review - I know just enough to be dangerous on process. I just finished a condensing of the lede (see above) and hope it was constructive - and apologize to RJ if the case is otherwise. Hoppyh (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I revised the lede to reflect the scholarship of recent years and summarize the themes of the article. I also trimmed out the 1898 business to focus only on TR and to use better cites. Previously it was far too long and TR actually was ignored & downplayed (something he would never allow in real life).Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Other FA articles have an info box for the cabinet which this article lacks. I will give it a try. Hoppyh (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

not needed--we have one already in the separate presidency article Rjensen (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Already done, should I revert it? Hoppyh (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

well it looks odd here. people need to use the Pfresidency article. Does anyone know when & why we lost FA status?? Rjensen (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll revert; I did a quick search in the archives and only found that a FA delist tag was on the article in 2006. Hoppyh (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it got demoted back in June 2008 due to consistency errors and lots of uncited content. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The notes in the References Section lack uniformity - I believe this requires (tedious) work by someone with the detailed knowledge. Hoppyh (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"re-elected" edit

Graf 4, beginning "Roosevelt became President" (I'd lower-case "President")..."In November 1904 he was reelected in a landslide..." We have already learned that Roosevelt succeeded the slain William McKinley in September 1901, so Roosevelt had not been elected president until 1904. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.26.195 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be hyperprecise, please note that the text does NOT say he was reelected as president. In fact he was elected in 1900, and was president in 1904 and this is the usual way of presenting it. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to be punctilious or pedantic about it, but I cannot locate hyperprecise in my (Shorter) OED. It might work as hyper precise. A better alternative might be casuistic. Hoppyh (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

recent edits based on Brands bio

Should be examined in detail -- I am loathe to simply revert them all, but there are significant inferences placed therein which are not explicitly made by Brands. They make for colourful reading, but do not accurately reflect the wording in the source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of the book myself, so I must ask: what inferences used in the text were misunderstood? Feel free to edit this along with myself, @Hoppyh:, and @Rjensen: in trying to get this article back up to GA status, maybe even FA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

E.g. TR "itching for war" where it is not stated in the book that he deliberately sought any specific war, Long's health being "poor" where the book does not emphasize it as the edit does, etc. Mainly examples of making the bio "more colourful" at the expense of being absolutely accurate per the book used as a source. I understand the temptation for colourful writing, but suggest that restraint in adjectives benefits the reader more. Collect (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to make corrections. Of course we could also use other sources if needed for bits. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

the text correctly follows the RS --TR as eager for war is reported in all the biographies. Brands says "Roosevelt had been itching for war for years" p 312. Barber (1980) says "For more than a decade, Roosevelt had been itching for a war—with Mexico, Chile, Venezuela, Canada, England, whomever." Jeansonne (2007) says "Assistant Navy Secretary Theodore Roosevelt, eager for war", Armstrong (2000) says he was "eager for war." May (1964) says TR was "more eager for war than was his chief"; Norton (1994) says over the years he "often seemed eager for war". As for Long, Dolan (2001) says "Secretary John D. Long, who was in poor health"; Hamilton (2006) says Long "was in poor health", as does Leech. "Vermont History" 1974 says "Another cabinet figure appointed in spite of his poor health was John D. Long,"; Cory (1998) says " he was in poor health." Rjensen (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Any inaccuracies are mine, though I'm not aware of any licentiousness on my part. I am always for more accuracy. Ironically, Brands has impressed me as having perhaps the most conversational writing style of any of the presidential biographers; interesting that he would be the one I would be cited for misquoting. I am always most confident when I know RJ is looking over my shoulder. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2014

Will you please link the Boone and Crockett Club references to the Boone and Crockett Club Wikipedia entry? Bc history (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Images moved per WP:IMAGE

I have removed the following images to reduce image crowding and improve the pertinence/significance of images per WP:IMAGE.

File:Theodore Roosevelt 1925 Issue-5c.jpg. (Note that a link has been provided to Presidential stamps.)

File:Light has gone out.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Diary entry February 14, 1884.

File:TRoosevelt.png|thumb|left|180px|Gubernatorial portrait of Theodore Roosevelt.

File:SanJuanHeightsUSArmyJuly1898VictorsKettleHill.jpg|550px|thumb|center|Alt:A black and white photo of US Army soldiers on July 3, 1898, in an unside down V type formation on top of Kettle Hill, two American flags in center and right. Soldiers facing camera.|Original title: "Colonel Roosevelt and his Rough Riders at the top of the hill which they captured, Battle of San Juan Hill." US Army victors on Kettle Hill about July 3, 1898 after the battle of "San Juan Hill(s)." Left to right is 3rd US Cavalry, 1st Volunteer Cavalry (Col. Theodore Roosevelt center) and 10th US Cavalry. A second similar picture is often shown cropping out all but the 1st Vol Cav and Roosevelt. (pictured above to the left)

File:cmoh army.jpg|upright|thumb|Medal of Honor (Note that the medal of honor is referenced and linked in the bio-graph heading the article).

File:TR-Xray.jpg|thumb|X-Ray of Roosevelt's ribcage showing the bullet at lower left.

File:tr nyc police commissioner.jpg|thumb|right|upright|Roosevelt as NYPD Commissioner 1895. Hoppyh (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Theodore Roosevelt circa 1902.jpg|thumb|right|180px|circa 1902

File:Kaiser Wilhelm II und Theodore Roosevelt.jpg|thumb|Theodore Roosevelt (center) and his son at a military parade near Berlin with German Wilhelm II, German Emperor|Emperor Wilhelm II (May, 1910) Hoppyh (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Charge of the Rough Riders at San Juan Hill.JPG|thumb|right|upright=1.4|Charge of the Rough Riders at San Juan Hill depicted by Frederic Remington. In reality, they assaulted San Juan Heights and Kettle Hill. Hoppyh (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Theodore Roosevelt and family, 1903.jpg|thumb|left|Roosevelt Family in 1903 with Quentin Roosevelt|Quentin on the left, TR, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.|Ted, Archibald Roosevelt|Archie, Alice Roosevelt Longworth|Alice, Kermit Roosevelt|Kermit, Edith Roosevelt|Edith, and Ethel Roosevelt Derby|Ethel Hoppyh (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

@Hoppyh:, once you've finished going through the article with your copy of the H. W. Brands biography, I say this article should be peer reviewed. @Rjensen:, can you perhaps help find someone willing to review the article before it is nominated for GA? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: I am finished with my work; but requesting reviews is not my strength. Suggest ref. to WP: Peer review for guidance. Hoppyh (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the referral. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt (the President) is not a JR, and Theodore Roosevelt (the general) is not a III.

Although his father was indeed named Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt the president was never in his life referred to as a Jr.

The Theodore Roosevelt Historical society, which is the official society chartered by Congress to memorialize the president in 1920, which is subsequently a non-profit, does not recognize him as a Jr. Furthermore, the Theodore Roosevelt (general from WWII), who Wikipedia has listed as Theodore Roosevelt III is in fact Theodore Roosevelt Jr.

From their website: http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/site/c.elKSIdOWIiJ8H/b.8090799/k.C003/Home.htm

Theodore “Ted” Roosevelt, Jr., born in 1887, was a noted political and business leader who fought in both the World Wars and posthumously received the Medal of Honor for his actions on Utah Beach during the D-Day landings in World War II.

And the Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt takes the same position, in listing the children of President Roosevelt.

Children: Alice Ted Jr. Kermit Ethel Archie Quentin

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trbioqf.html

And Ted Jr.'s citation for D-Day mentions him as Ted Jr.:

The President of the United States of America, in the name of Congress, takes pride in presenting the Medal of Honor (Posthumously) to Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (ASN: 0-139726), United States Army, for gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944...

Additional proof that TR Jr. (the general) was not TR III:

https://yy2.staticflickr.com/3782/9381981883_3170a0fb06_z.jpg http://image1.findagrave.com/photos/2009/157/2144_124441013889.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalan94 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, Wikipedia redirects "Teddie" here. This makes no sense. His nickname was "Teddy" with a y, not an ie. In point of fact, he did not like this nickname, but it was indeed his nickname. Teddie is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalan94 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, biographer Nathan Miller writes that the President was indeed Jr. Flickr is not a good source, I should add, and many people make the mistake of not counting all ancestors in regard to suffix. The president himself was often referred to as "Teddy" in the press, but he very openly hated being called "Teddy" and quickly said so to anybody who referred to him as such. I'm not sure why "Teddie" redirects to here, though "Teedie" would make more sense. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

With a little more fact-checking, this page can be a candidate for a Wikipedia Distinguished Page. However, it's errors like these that make it a harder sell. 204.65.209.242 (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean by "distinguished page"..... but simply put, the president was Jr. as indicated in Nathan Miller's biography Theodore Roosevelt: A Life. 22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reelection

Theodore Roosevelt was NOT reelected President in 1904, he was elected to a second term, having NOT been elected to the first.50.181.139.231 (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)JPW

Semi-protected edit request

Since he's commonly known as Teddy Roosevelt, that form needs to appear in boldface in the lead section. It could be something like

(or Teddy Roosevelt, although he disliked the nickname)

inserted right in the lead sentence, or it could be placed lower down. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done it is already mentioned later in the article that he openly despised being called as such and was quick to say so to anybody who called him "Teddy".

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2014

Under the Foreign Policy heading, the sentence "After the rebellion ended in 1901 he largely lost interest in the Philippines and Asian expansion generally, despite the contradictory opinion of his Secretary of War, William Howard Taft" does not end with a period and it's driving me crazy. It also needs a comma after "1901" because that is the end of a prepositional phrase. I created an account just to fix it but I can't because the document is protected :( Mikemike616 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2014

The sentence that begins "Distraught, he left baby Alice in the care of his sister Bamie..." infers that the newborn baby was called "Alice" when, in fact, she was referred to as "Baby Lee" (see Wiki article on Alice Roosevelt Longworth)

I suggest that the sentence read "Distraught, he left his newborn daughter in the care of his sister Bamie..."

74.134.238.32 (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Understandable, but it would still be correct to refer to her as Alice since that was her real name while "Baby Lee" was a nickname. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

World War I

The background text in the WWI section is quite sparse given that Congress authorized 4 volunteer divisions led by Roosevelt, and Roosevelt published an entire book on his betrayal, a book that is not yet even cited in this article. I therefore propose the following addition:

When World War I began in 1914, Roosevelt strongly supported the Allies and demanded a harsher policy against Germany, especially regarding submarine warfare. Roosevelt angrily denounced the foreign policy of President Wilson, calling it a failure regarding the atrocities in Belgium and the violations of American rights. In 1916, he campaigned energetically for Charles Evans Hughes and repeatedly denounced Irish-Americans and German-Americans who Roosevelt said were unpatriotic because they put the interest of Ireland and Germany ahead of America's by supporting neutrality. He insisted one had to be 100% American, not a "hyphenated American" who juggled multiple loyalties. In March 1917, Congress gave Roosevelt the authority to raise up to four divisions similar to the Rough Riders and Major Frederick Russell Burnham was put in charge of both the general organization and recruitment. But the Commander-in-chief, President Woodrow Wilson announced to the press that he would not send Roosevelt and his volunteers to France, but instead would send an American Expeditionary Force under the command of General John Pershing. Roosevelt was left with no option except to disband the volunteers. He never forgave Wilson, and quickly published The Foes Of Our Own Household, an indictment of the sitting president.

• ——— (1917), The Foes of Our Own Household, New York: George H. Doran, LCCN 17025965

Ctatkinson (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't put language like "an astute display of political trickery" in a WP article the way it is here. If the NYT, to which the sentence is cited, called it that or something like that, or it quoted Roosevelt saying that or something similar, you could quote and attribute it, but it shouldn't go in as it stands. Not sure you need "harsh indictment" either, "indictment" should be strong enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Roosevelt phased it similarly in his book, but I think your changes makes it easier for the reader so I've made the edits you recommended. Ctatkinson (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Since I'm planning to take this to GAN at some point, that would be useful for breadth of coverage. Thank you Ctatkinson for the suggestion, feel free to add it! Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tks for taking those suggestions on board. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Template reference to 2014 Ken Burns/PBS documentary

What motivates the "See Also" template reference at the top of the article (added 15 Sept. 2014)? This could be interpreted as promotion of a contemporary film. If the documentary is noteworthy or does contain important material not otherwise covered, wouldn't a reference, or a mention of the film in the Memorials/In Popular Culture section be more fitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.70.25 (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The link was already in the "See also" section, and I believe its 'top billing' was an undue endorsement, so I've undone that edit. —ADavidB 10:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2014

The acronym GOP is used 22 times on this page and defined twice (12th and 19th reference in Sections "Presidential election of 1884" and "Election of 1912", respectively). I recommend (1) that "Republican Party (GOP)" replace "Republican Party" in the second sentence of the first paragraph (2) that further reference to GOP be hyperlinked to the Republican party page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States) Cvkcanada (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: did 1, not going to wikilink every use of GOP, did it once for the first use of GOP alone in the lede Cannolis (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Skews image of Roosevelt

"He quickly entered politics, determined to become a member of the ruling class." This needs a citation. Also, he was half-joking when he called politicians the "ruling class" for his main reason in entering politics was to be a reformer, creating a clean, moral government. 66.211.119.154 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Burton, David Henry (2005) Taft, Roosevelt and the Limits of Friendship Cranbury, NJ:Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press.

Profile picture

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

Actually, I'm rather partial to this one. It shows him while he was president... still young and hopeful and full of life. The one up there now shows him several years after the presidency... disillusioned, pissed off and growing his peppers and tomatoes. – JBarta (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jbarta, I should note that the one you suggested was once used for quite some time until a switch came along within the past year or so. If it means anything, the one being used right now is a featured picture, perhaps your suggested pic could become one as well. Also, your description of the currently used photo made me laugh :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a little digging... an uncropped version of the younger picture was used for a while until User:EeuHP (who is currently blocked BTW) changed it to the current picture back in May 2013. Interestingly, EeuHP made exactly one edit to this article... and that was to change the picture. In all seriousness though, I don't really care all that much which picture is used. We have a number of nice ones, any of which will do nicely. (including the current one) That said, while the laughing TR is a great photo, it's probably not the best choice for his "profile picture". – JBarta (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Teddy

This sentence in the "veteran" section:

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

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

Suspected plaigarism

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

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

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

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

Adding the Theodore Roosevelt Center to the Wikipedia Page

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

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

The Theodore Roosevelt Article fails to mention key faults.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2014

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

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Roosevelt resigned from the Navy

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

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

Done Stickee (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

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

Her***

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

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

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

NO change, please disregard my previous edit request.

National Guard

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

Wow, Rjensen, I wasn't aware that policy exists whereby we limit the amount of space for content in an article based on what "major biographies" write. What's more, that policy must state we are required to completely leave out a portion of someone's life in a biography because no reliable source deems it "important". Perhaps you can find that policy and enlighten me, because such reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow--your one source explicitly says it was minor. why do you disagree with your own source? Wikipedia reflects the views of the RS, not individual editors. It's quite possible to write 200,000 words on TR, so the editors use the RS to tell what is important and what is not. Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I note your response does not contain anything that supports your belief that we limit content inclusion to only that which is written about by "major biographies". No matter. I was able to incorporate content on TR's National Guard service - something he referred to as "invaluable" (see this [1] for more) - into the section on the SA War and the Rough Riders. Complete with references, of course. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2015

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

Already done Edits have been reverted Cannolis (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraph wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi Protection Status

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

Avrand6: Why does it need protection? I don't see any instability nor has there been any vandalism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the page logs, this has actually been semi-protected since October 2012 due to ongoing vandalism. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is rough consensus to oppose the merger. The majority opinion argument is that enough notability exists for a separate article. AlbinoFerret 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

---

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

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

Perhaps you've misunderstood what I meant, see WP:Merging. I was suggesting to include some information on Alice in this article, and for hers to redirect here. The idea isn't to retitle the page to be about both of them. Not every person warrants a separate article, as noted at WP:Notability (people). Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wives of presidents DO.Ericl (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Not automatically. While second wife Edith is famous as First Lady, Alice is much less notable on her own per WP:ANYBIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

yes indeedie! However, she's notable enough.Ericl (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How so? Name one thing outside of family affiliations that makes her notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing really, however, Martha Jefferson has a page, as do all the other pre-presidential wives and post-presidential spouses Mary Dimmick Harrison and Caroline C. Fillmore have pages too. Why all the hating?Ericl (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is no "hating" going on. As for other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a convincing reason to have a page because one solely cannot use the notability level of one subject to determine another subject's notability. If a subject isn't known for anything outside of family affiliations, then the subject doesn't warrant a separate article because—as previously stated—notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED. is for "two degrees of separation" or more. For instance, FDR's niece on his half brother's side, Helen Rebecca Roosevelt, doesn't have an article, and that's good. She didn't have an impact on FDR's life or anyone else's for that matter (outside of her family and a small circle of friends). The same goes for William Howard Taft, 2nd, who was named after his great uncle. He had no impact on anything at all and doesn't rate an article. Alice Lee, on the other hand, had a major impact on Theodore Roosevelt's life, and thus, indirectly, on history in general. You cannot say the same thing about most of Winston Churchill's grandchildren...and one other thing, articles on major US presidents are too long as it is, which is why there's so much splitting. The story of TR's first marriage is extremely important to the building of his character, and it should be told in HER article, with only a bit of it in his. Ericl (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not exactly how WP:Notability (people) works..... Impact on someone's life doesn't automatically mean one meets notability criteria. A person doesn't warrant a separate article if they don't have any notability on their own. Alice has little (if any) on her own. She is a plausible search term and warrants a mention in this article, but doesn't have enough on her own for a separate article. Best for her to redirect to this article, regardless of President article length. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh, no. "Reliable" and "significant coverage" in secondary "sources" such as Carol Felsenthal (31 December 2003). Princess Alice: The Life and Times of Alice Roosevelt Longworth. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-30222-1 and Stacy A. Cordery (30 September 2008). Alice: Alice Roosevelt Longworth, from White House Princess to Washington Power Broker. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-311427-7 means "presumed" per WP:N. Therefor we must keep both. Archivist1174 (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Archivist1174:, I don't know how much Alice the WIFE of TR is covered in those books, but the title would suggest that the subject matter is primarily dealing with Alice the DAUGHTER of TR. Nonetheless, I would still say that the article should be kept. p b p 04:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am suggesting to merge wife Alice, not the daughter. Notability is not inherited, and WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." Unlike the daughter, there's no convincing reason for the wife to have a separate article since she's only known for family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are interpreting NOTINHERITED a little differently than it's been interpreted. Most people deleted under the auspices of NOTINHERITED aren't deleted because there are few, if any, sources without mention of another family member, they are deleted because there are few, if any, sources at all. p b p 12:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Weak support per NOTINHERITED, but this article seems to be quite long and seems reasonably sourced. Epic Genius (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I really think NOTINHERITED was intended more for siblings/children/wife of pop culture celebrities. As a wife of a president of the United States she is inherently notable, she's even inspired a book http://www.biblio.com/9780385243490 even more as a mother of a presidential child is a place in history that historians would read about for years. I cannot see how merging this would be good for the project, how would you summarize 10,000 bytes without losing information our readers would want to see? Even more so making this article clunky. GuzzyG (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it was intended for people of all types. WP:BIOFAMILY states that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Therefore, family affiliations alone are NOT enough to warrant a separate article. All that she warrants is a brief mention here and on daughter's article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: All i am saying is if she is in other encyclopedias as a historical person, http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-2591308047/roosevelt-alice-lee-18611884.html, there seems to be reliable sources that are not online but as i am in Australia i may not have access to such print sources. If she is in a women's history encyclopedia i'd use WP:IGNOREALLRULES for this case.GuzzyG (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" doesn't apply; there's no demonstration of how she's notable outside of her relationship with Theodore. Even the sources you provide are heavily based/focused on her relationship with him. See the "Invalid criteria" and WP:BIOFAMILY sections of WP:BIO for why she doesn't meet notability, unlike Edith Roosevelt. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose This reminds me or all of all the dead royal babies who have articles and minor nobles as well. Henry VIII had five or six sons, none of whom lived more than a few weeks, yet most of them have an article. Edward VI doesn't count in this case). The same with a bunch of younger sons of minor British Dukes or the likes of Xavier, Duke of Aquitaine. She had an effect on history and this thus notable.Ericl (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a convincing argument for keeping an article. Alice actually had no direct impact on history. Notability can't solely come from being a family member of someone famous. She didn't even serve as First Lady. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, she did. She chose where TR got his home in Sagamore Hill.Ericl (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose — Most of the first ladies (including Michael Obama) have a Wikipedia article. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to use the "this crap exist" argument, I am saying that this woman does seem notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Edith Roosevelt served as First Lady during Theodore's presidency, not Alice. Besides, being a spouse of someone famous is not by itself a valid reason to keep an article per WP:BIO (see the "Invalid criteria" and WP:BIOFAMILY sections for more). Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support —CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support merging. She was never First Lady, the majority of the article is about T.R.'s courtship with her and her death, and her most notable act in life seems to be marrying and then widowing the future POTUS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose She may not have been first lady, but neither was Martha Jefferson, wife of Thomas Jefferson who died 20 years before Jefferson's Presidency. In this case, Alice's life and death had a profound impact on Roosevelt. Not only was she his first love, but her death sent him to Ranch in the Dakotas. Without that, his political rise may have been different, had he stayed in the Assembly. Maybe his cowboy persona would never have been developed while ranching on the plains. She is important enough. Spartan7W § 03:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not exactly how notability works. Please see the "Invalid criteria" and "Family" sections of WP:Notability (people) as well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Notability is not inherited; being a woman he loved does not by itself make her notable. There's no convincing reason for her to have a separate article, especially since the vast majority of it pertains to her relationship with the President. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. She was a notable part of the first night of Ken Burns' documentary on the Roosevelts. That means what's said in her article can be cited with reliable sources. Otherwise, one could claim that a certain wife of Henry VIII isn't as notable as the other wives and therefore shouldn't have her own article. A presidential bio has a wide ranging scope to cover. There's more scope to cover Teddy's first marriage here than in his bio, and I highly doubt she'd have been Teddy's first wife had she not been a notable member of society of the time herself. MMetro (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've said it before and I'll say it again..... notability is not inherited; see the "family" and "invalid criteira" sections of WP:Notability (people), which state being related to/married to someone famous DOES NOT BY ITSELF make a person notable. The vast majority of her article is really about her relationship with the president, and has nothing of value that can't be included her. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"If a notable person's main article is too long to contain all of their works, then a separate page can be created for that information"-- clearly the case here MMetro (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You've overlooked this problem: just about everything except for Alice's birth and death pertain to her relationship with Theodore. She has nothing of value that warrants a separate article. Again, there is nothing significant about her that can't be mentioned here. Additionally, raw article size by itself doesn't mean non-notable relatives should have pages. Bits also don't necessarily need to be extensive when merged into other articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Alice's personal info does not belong in Teddy's bio, period. However, the marriage is notable, and can be covered in detail through her article. You're not gonna stop until you've succeeded in crufting a presidential bio, are you? MMetro (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Just about all of her notable info is already here anyway. It is NOT an instance of "crufting" to have her redirect here at all when including all notable detail. Please read WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria and WP:Notability (people)#Family if you haven't already. Admittedly, I am frustrated that people have overlooked the fact that she isn't notable enough for a separate article per the links provided. While Edith on the other hand has WP:Notability on her own, Alice most certainly doesn't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeating yourself does not increase your validity, Snugg. The reference to Alice Lee Roosevelt is 2 paragraphs with 3 citations in the TR article-- a proper length integrated into Teddy's bio. Alice's article is 11 paragraphs with 11 citations and divided into 3 main sections. It is a developed article that demonstrates her notability despite the chauvinism that existed of the time. The article expands upon the first marriage and widowhood section of the Teddy article. Books have been written about her as many have noted. Considering how many times you've had to explain yourself, could the lack of notability actually be in reference to you, not her? You don't seem to be building a consensus, while the consensus continually cites proof of her notability, leaving you to try to quote OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is actually a proof for either opinion. MMetro (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(Shakes head in disappointment) Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED; one does not become notable solely through a marriage. Additionally, just about every reliable source discussing her really pertains more to Theodore than her. For those claiming she is notable (which she isn't per the links I provided), nobody has provided any convincing evidence to prove it. Being married to someone famous DOES NOT by itself make one notable. She's pretty much a case of WP:BIO1E, with the "1E" being her relationship. In order for her to warrant a separate page, one would have to include something significant she was noted for that had nothing to do with family affiliations. Unless someone can somehow provide that, she's not notable. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, that states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist. None of the "these exist" articles mentioned provide good rationales for keeping Alice's page because relationships ≠ notability, and they don't really focus on what significance she has. It would've helped if her article at least went into more than just brief detail about her life prior to when they met, but there's nothing of value even there included. I'd probably be more inclined to keep her if she served as first lady, but she never became that. I'm afraid that lots of people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:Notability (people) requires. If it makes people feel any better about raw article size, this article doesn't necessarily have to be extended more than a couple of sentences or maybe a paragraph if merged; her birth range and perhaps her initial views of him would likely be all of value that isn't already included here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

• "After 1932"..... they were married in the 1880's, and had both died long before 1932. Not sure if WP:BIO is being misunderstood, disregarded, or both. In any case, WP:BIOFAMILY specifically says that notability doesn't come solely for being related to a famous person. Such articles are therefore discouraged due to lack of independent notability. This isn't so much about "exclud[ing] content" as it is a matter of independent notability (which she lacks). "Presumed to be notable" doesn't automatically equate to "is notable", either. Edith Roosevelt, on the other hand, was noted for more than just being TR's wife. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

But it's not solely for being related. The secondary sources note the effect her death had on Theodore, and upon the raising of her daughter. Note what the explanation on the page was trying to say. He's POTUS. At a certain point, fame is not just fame. You are dealing with people who changed history in a HUGE way, and at that point, the people important to that person can affect history too (Example: every wife of Henry VIII). Supposing what that effect may be would be WP:CRYSTAL, but what actually did happen is NOTABLE. Teddy got even further into New York politics to hide from her death. And what WP:NOTABILITY actually means is that Alice's relatives don't get to have their own article. Presuming that "Presumed to be notable doesn't automatically equate to "is notable" is not any less of a presumption. You're stretching yourself. MMetro (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per the reasons myself and others have given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt (2nd nomination). She is notable because she has garnered sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Why she got that coverage is not relevant. I could argue Princess Diana should be merged into Charles' page using the rationale presented by those pushing for the merge. Calidum T|C 12:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• The reason IS relevant in this case; since notability is not inherited, marriage to a famous person is not by itself enough to warrant a separate article as per WP:BIO. With no other defining aspects (things one is noted for), she doesn't meet notability criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - per my comments at the concurrent AFD, which is also just about to close as a "keep". She meets the GNG, and there's enough content present. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You, along with every one !voting oppose here and keep at the AfD, are wrong. It's in times such as this that the "community" concept in regard to decision-making utterly fails. Why? Because the point/bottom line in what an encyclopedia is and should be is forgotten or pushed aside in favor of... God knows what. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Take your sour grapes elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

My comments come nowhere close to violating the policy you linked to, and you know it. If you don't, you should. Especially as an admin. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I read that as one sentence baselessly complaining that you didn't agree with me, and then 3-4 sentences randomly complaining about Wikipedia and how the concept of consensus was not working in your favor here. Apologies. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a crap about the consensus going against me, because neither the article nor my !vote are about me. My comments here and at the AfD are about the article and the encyclopedia. This is just more B.S. non-AGF from you, Serge. One hopes to see better attitudes, knowledge, and behavior from admins. Sadly, I'm seeing none of that from you here. Pity. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There's yet another response that doesn't refer to the Roosevelts at all... Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Quit referring to him as Theodore Roosevelt Jr.

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

Eugenics and the "reliable secondary source" fallacy

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

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

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

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

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

Just so it is said, the information regarding Theodore Roosevelt's eugenic views have been there since March 2nd, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressingamerica (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Old stuff has to follow the wiki rules abour reliable secondary sources. The section depends on private readings of primary sources--a very dangerous policy. ( the opening section about "many states" is simply false....only California was active in TR's day.) The Madison Grant passage is not about eugenics & hides the fact that

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

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and I incorporated what you mentioned about Neo-Lamarckism. It's useful in describing his views, perhaps you would like to review my changes and further refine?

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