Talk:Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Contents

[edit] Redundant text removed; anyone disagree?

I just did a heavy edit on the "World War II service and death" section. In the process, I removed a block of text from the end of the "Roosevelt's leadership style clashes" subsection because it repeated material covered earlier.

He had wanted to be a soldier since early childhood. Talked out of West Point by his father, Ted nevertheless volunteered to attend the Plattsburgh Officer Candidates School in New York, and there had distinguished himself as a young officer candidate in the summers leading up to World War I. When the United States declared war on Germany, given a major's commission, Ted volunteered to be of the first soldiers to go France. There, Ted had distinguished himself as the best battalion commander in his division per the division commander, himself. He had braved hostile fire and gas and had led his battalion in combat. So concerned was he for his men's welfare that he had even purchased combat boots for the entire battalion with his own money. Before the troops even came home from France, he had originated and championed the idea of a soldier's organization that would become the American Legion. In between wars, Ted continued to attend professional officer training classes. Although not a West Point graduate or a career regular Army officer, any casual reader has to ask how Ted was not a soldier in almost every sense except in Patton's spit-shinned way.

This leaves the assertion that he was "a soldier's soldier" unsupported; maybe someone who knows the subject will have a better sense for how to address that than I do.

I also removed information about the D-Day landing because the sentence was hopelessly tangled and I couldn't quickly figure out the facts:

He was the first soldier off the landing craft on landed with Company E, 2nd Battalion, 8th US Army Regiment, permission to land with one of the first waves of troops at Utah Beach. On D-day, he led the U.S. 4th Infantry Division's landing at Utah Beach.

I took out the company, battalion, and regiment info and reworded. DoorsAjar 00:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jr. vs. III

"He married his childhood sweetheart, Eleanor Butler Alexander, on June 20, 1910."

Shouldn't he be theodore roosevelt the third, since his father was the second? Wikiwarlock 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since President Theodore Roosevelt's father died before Theodore Jr. was born, it was up to the discretion of the family as to the use of "Junior" and "III". The same situation applied with George S. Patton, Jr., the World War II general, whose grandfather, the first George S. Patton, died before he was born, although the general's own son called himself George S. Patton IV. 209.158.189.54 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Roosevelt, wife/cousin?

Did they call his wife Eleanor Roosevelt? What an interesting coincidence! -- Toytoy 02:26, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Ted's wife was called Eleanor Roosevelt. During THE Eleanor Roosevelt's campaign against her first cousin, Ted's Eleanor found not only Eleanor's means of campaigning displeasing but also the fact the two of them had the same name and that voters would think that his wife was campaigning against him. 10:58 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the pictures has a caption that says he died less than a month after D-Day. But if he died on July 12 and D-Day was June 6, that is over a month.

Don't be picky :P Henners91 07:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor

It may be difficult to maintain NPOV, but Teddy Sr. and Jr's MoHs were both extremely political, and IMO that fact should be addressed. (Teddy Sr.'s award was one of the last things Bill Clinton did in office, presenting the gong to TR's grand-nephew, IIRC, 100 years after the event.) Teddy Jr. was a very popular officer, and certainly his name did not hurt the campaign to give him the award. But in all objectivity, neither award was merited because neither action was remotely "above & beyond." TR Sr. was a regimental commander who commanded his regiment, period. Jr. was an asst. division cdr. doing what BGs do. If anyone deserved an MoH for actions "below and beyond" it was Norman Cota, asst. cdr. of the 29th Div., who performed almost every function expected of 2nd lts. up to BGs, on Omaha Beach--a far, far tougher situation than Utah.

Correction on who Ted's medal was presented to. It was presented to TR's great-grandson, Tweed Roosevelt with several other great grandsons, various cousins and Dr. John Gable, Director of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, who had helped support the push with historicl information.
Re Norm Cota - I understand that there has been an organized move to get Gen Cota the recognition he deserves for his actions at D-Day. SimonATL 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is your proof that Mr. Roosevelt, Jr's Medal of Honor was political? It sounds more of an opinion. He was the only general that went in on the first wave of D-Day and when the boats placed his unit far from the landing point, he did his own reconnaissance and made a new plan on the spot that was successful. It sounds like he went above and beyond what was expected of him. Azn Clayjar 05:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As to the politics, There were both personal as WELL as political considerations re Ted's MOH, - Agree on the comparison of Ted and Cota (who was, by the way, a cousin of the Roosevelts). Omaha beach, indeed, was a far tougher situation that Utah. But consider this - just HOW much information did Ted have that opposition-wise, the situation was much more difficult on Omaha than Utah did Ted have? Ted was on the 1st wave at Utah. Norm Cota was on the second wave at Ohama. Political and family considerations - If Ted had NOT died weeks after D-Day, being a hard core Republican, it is UNlikely that FDR would have backed a MOH recommendation for Ted on the part of its sponsors. On an inner Roosevelt family perspective. There had been an enormous rift between FDR and Eleanor, on one hand, and Ted and Alice Roosevelt, over Eleanor's effective blocking of Ted's success in the NY govenor campaign when Eleanor literally drove around from one appearance of Ted on the stump, with a tea pot on a car supplied by the democrats successfully (but UNfairly, as Ted and his brother Archie helped to UNcovered the scandal) linking Ted to the Teapot Dome Scandal. This activity by Eleanor undoubtedly significantly hurt Ted's chances for success in New York. Now, with Ted dead, and any political threat from him removed, supporting the MOH on his behalf CERTAINLY must have gone a LONG way to repair the damage, hurt and bad feelings between the Hyde Park and Oyster Bay Roosevelts. SimonATL 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patton accurately characterized

On editor removed my description of Gen George Patton's "brashness, impetuosity, arrogance and a self-promoting style" shameless POV. While I actually admire much about Patton, can you list even ONE modern reputable professional historian or Patton biographer who does NOT consider Patton "brash, impetous, arrogant and self-promoting?" The evidence beyond my mere opinion is incredible. Patton himself spoke of these aspects of his personality. Please defend your points that this characterization of him is NOT simply common knowledge of anyone who has read 3-4 biographies. Hey, it gave the man color. I suggest you read both his own biography as well as 2-3 that are out there. I admire the guy's so-called good points but don't make excuses for the other less "friendly" aspects of his character. If you read several biographies of Ted Jr, you WILL see that he WAS, in fact, a soldier's soldier - a HECK of lot more than Omar Bradley, whom I've come to realize was NOT what he portrayed himself to be. Look at THAT man's pre-WWII record. SimonATL 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to these edits by any chance ([1], [2])? Can you please tell me for example how you know that "Ted" was "a soldier's soldier"? Or that "U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall saw in Ted the kind of intelligence and aggressive instinct that would be needed as a new generation of young Americans, by the millions, went off to war largely untested by combat."? We are writing an encyclopaedia, not a Mills and Boon romance novel. No offence, but please familiarise yourself with e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable Sources etc etc etc. and then we can discuss it again. Those edits were blatantly your POV and had absolutely nothing by way of citation to back them up (not that such intrinsically POV material can ever really be sourced anyway). Any reasonable Wikipedia editor will remove this sort of nonsense on sight, as I did. I defy you to find any experienced editor who would do anything but giggle at that kind of prose, and I mean no offence by that, you are obviously invested in the article and no doubt have a lot to offer. But not with that kind of material. Badgerpatrol 12:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I must agree with Simon. It's said that his brashness and such was what made him the leader he was- the leader that took risks, didn't wait around for orders, but got out and did them himself. A professional which supports this is the respected author Stephen Ambrose, who mentions 2 excellent accounts of these traits in Citizen Soldiers- Patton saved the 101st in Bastogne (the story being as soon as he heard word of the counter-offensive, he told his generals to change directions and fight to the north and west, before given the command, getting it 2 days later, and already having his forces only 2 more days away from attacking the southern shoulder of the buldge) and of his brilliant offensive in Operation Cobra where he pushed his troops 600 miles in 2 weeks, with the help of a few other allied units. Also, the author Keith D. Dickson, a lt-colonel in the US army and professor of military studies at the joint forces staff college, national defense university, says of Patton in his book on WWII "He was ruthless in carrying out his plans and sought to move rapidly against th eenemy. He was at his best in exploiting enemy weaknesses and maneuvering rapidly. Patton was so emotionally tied to soldierly ideals sometimes he lashed out at those who he believed did not live up to those ideals.... Patton chafed at restrictions placed on him due to political decisions and didn't hesitate to share his opinion with superiors, specifically Alllied Supreme Commander Eisenhower and American General Omar Bradley."--LtWinters 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What a pleasant surprise to see you here. So, to clarify, you think that the text I removed [1], [2] is encyclopaedic and conforms to WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE, WP:V, etc.? Badgerpatrol 23:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is brilliant to see you as well. Yes, I must say, I see it as fair and truthful, because although it would normally be considered original research, I must say because it is in many of Patton's biographies, those certainly are common traits about him. However, I must disagree with part of what Simon was saying. The 2nd link you give me I would say is perfectly fair, common and widely documented and puplished knowledge, and even puts Ted in a good light, but the 1st link, although true, I think should be included, but not in that sort of way. He was brash, but brashness could be defined and misinterpreted as aggresivly rude, instead of agressiveness. So I would support putting in the 1st link with a few changes, and I would enthustiastically (or however you spell it) support the 2nd link. --LtWinters 00:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV WP:OR and WP:SOURCE these statements need to be sourced and they need to be expressed in neutral and encyclopaedic language which is "formal, impersonal, and dispassionate" (WP:BETTER). If you agree with the first link, find me a source that says that Roosevelt was "a soldier's soldier" and quote it directly. If you agree with the second link, find me a source (i.e. Marshall's own diaries or someone else's personal recollections of a dialogue with him) where he says "I see in Ted Roosevelt the kind of intelligence and aggressive instinct that will be needed..." yada yada yada. If you can, fine, it's still poorly phrased crap that adds nothing to the article, but at least it's sourced. But if you can't find suitable sources...then the material cannot go in. I'm afraid that's how Wikipedia works. Badgerpatrol 01:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That will be Simon's perogative. I am simply supporting his claims. --LtWinters 02:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute his claims re Patton- that wasn't the shameless POV I originally noted. It was the asinine rose-tinted "Ted was a soldier's soldier" nonsense that I particularly took umbrage with (although that is not to say that the Patton claims do not have to sourced too in themselves- "verifiability, not truth"). Badgerpatrol 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting

I don't know much about TR; but from what I've read in other articles and heard from common stereotypes he was quite a hunstman yes? Does that not deserve a mention? (Even if it is rather barbaric :P) Henners91 07:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

This article is almost entirely unsourced. It needs citations throughout. It is also full of POV statements. In other words, it needs a lot of cleaning up. --EECEE 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a fine article!

Having recently read many of the available sources on Ted Roosevelt's life and accomplishments, I must say that this is one of the best Wikipedia articles I've ever read. So far as I am able to judge, it is spot-on, both in terms of accuracy and capturing the man's character. I don't see POV. It does need more documentations. But congratulations to the contributors for getting the big picture right.Bryan 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)