Talk:Theodore Roosevelt/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Cartoon Date

1910 cartoon shows Roosevelt's multiple roles to 1919

The title of the cartoon "1910 cartoon shows Roosevelt's multiple roles to 1919" must surely be incorrect unless the cartoonist had precognitive abilities, Wolbo 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion

Hello all. I've done a partial revert to correct some vandalism from 209.94.106.3 on 5 Feb 07. Bdevoe 22:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but this article is particularly prone to vandalism. I feel like I'm here to revert something once a day, and I'm only catching a little of it. How about some kind of protection for it? -- Oaxaca dan 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little upset, because it seems that someone has gone onto the page and revised the simplified spelling paragraph back into normal English. Could someone please correct this? Thank you. 129.170.233.187 21:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First Marriage section problems

The paragraph that talks about Alice being called sister by her siblings, which appears before she was given to her aunt for care, really confuses me. Was there time travel so that she lived during the second marriage with her siblings and then traveled back in time to be given to her aunt? I'm guesing that some point about Alice and TR's relationship later in life, but that isn't related to TR's first marriage.Mulp 01:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read that Alice spent some limited time during visits with her half-siblings when they were young. "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" Rickster77 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"death"section

Theres some stuff in the death section thats not about his death. Im not sure where i should put it though... JamesBenjamin 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

...Response/suggestions:

...The item about the White House Gang could go in White House section.

Then maybe a new section: Religious Views and Life Philosophy to cover religious practices, Freemason, views and strenuous life, physical activity etc. This new section could go right after "World War I" section.

The item about his name preference: "Teddy vs. Theodore" could go in childhood, education and personal life. How does that sound?
Rickster77 00:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct Pronunciation of Roosevelt's Last Name

This can no longer be in dispute because we have Roosevelt, himself, pronouncing it on an 1898 audio file and also corresponding with several people on the correct pronunciation "Rose-ah-velt." See audio of TR announcing bugle calls with that pronuciation in 1898 at http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/record.cfm as well as TR from a letter on the same at http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d227/Theodore_Roosevelt and finally from the Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia at the Theodore Roosevelt Association (TRA) Web site at http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/TR%20Web%20Book/TR_CD_to_HTML571.html SimonATL 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt makes the cover of Time Magazine

Roosevelt was on the cover of Time Magazine as the feature article on June 26, 2006 entitled, The 20th Century Express - At home and abroad, Theodore Roosevelt was the locomotive President, the man who drew his flourishing nation into the future. Any bets if the editors read our article. I also heard that Time Magazine's editors did consult with the Theodore Roosevelt Association in researching their cover story. SimonATL 22:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Other" section

The first item states TR's first photo was of him looking out window at Lincoln funeral train. I have never seen any factual record to verify that one of these two faces was TR. I think we need to stick to the facts and re-write this to say one of the two distant faces could possibly be TR. The faces are way too small in the photo. The photo by the way was an area wide photo of Lincoln Funeral train with many distant faces. To say it IS a picture of TR is really not correct. This has never been proven to show TR, . . Or has it been??

You are correct about the controversy surrounding that photo. While many authoritive accounts says something like, "It is thought to be a young Theodore Roosevelt and his sister..." or words to that effect, the Theodore Roosevelt Association has traced this photo to TR's grandfather's home, indicating on their web site that in this photo, a young Theodore, "Watches Abraham Lincoln's funeral procession from an upstairs window of his grandfather's house on Union Square, New York City. With him are his younger brother Elliott and a friend named Edith Kermit Carow." See http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/timeline.htm SimonATL 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

the only good indians

Can anyone verify that Roosevelt actually said "I don't go so far as to think that 'the only good Indians are dead Indians', but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth" ? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"My friends seem to think," said Roosevelt, "that I can talk only on two subjects-the bear and the cowboy-and the one I am to handle this evening is the more formidable of the two. After all, the cowboys are not the ruffians and desperadoes that the nickel library prints them. Of course, in the frontier towns where the only recognized amusements are vices, there is more or less of riot and disorder. But take the cowboy on his native heath, on the round-up, and you will find in him the virtues of courage, endurance, good fellowship, and generosity. He is not sympathetic. The cowboy divides all humanity into two classes, the sheep and the goats, those who can ride bucking horses and those who can't; and I must say he doesn't care much for the goats.

"I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Take three hundred low families of New York and New Jersey, support them, for fifty years, in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the 'cowboys who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers of the plains. As for the soldiers, an Indian chief once asked Sheridan for a cannon. 'What! do you want to kill my soldiers with it?' asked the general. 'No,' replied the chief, 'Want to kill cowboy; kill soldier with a club.'

"Ranch life is ephemeral. Fences are spreading. all over the western country, and, by the end of the century, most of it will be under cultivation. I, for one, shall be sorry to see it go; for when the cowboy disappears, one of the best and healthiest phases of western life will disappear with him."

Source: Roosevelt in the Bad Lands, Hermann Hagedorn (Boston, 1921), pp. 354-356

A COMMENT on TR's opinion. Let's remember that TR was only 28 when he said this, he had seen for himself the horrible condition under which the Indians were living under, having been defeated and put on reservations less than 10 years before his speech. Custer had been defeated less than 10 years before and anti-Indian sentiment still ran high. Also when he became a Commissioner of the US Civil Service and had to tour government installations from coast to coast and actually witnessed, first hand, the squalor and neglect of native Americans, his attitude toward them softened considerably and he fought on the behalf against the corruption of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the wholesale theft of provisions set aside for the Indians by crooked federal agents.SimonATL 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First marriage

Where is the content for this heading? It makes the overall article weaker by raising reader expectations Fidelia 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Puck cartoon

In the "Puck" cartoon of TR handing over his polices to Taft, can we get an identification of who the bellman carrying the Big Stick is a caricature of? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to an edit by User:SimonATL to the image while it was here on en:Wikipedia, it is William Loeb. Unfortunately that info wasn't transfered when the image was moved to Commons; I have corrected that shameful oversight. -- Infrogmation 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Puck

I think it is William Loeb in the pic but it sure does look like Theodore Roosevelt playing all the characters but maybe it is someone else. Who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.145.194 (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What?

What happened to the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbablake 2 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the Theodore Roosevelt article, you inappropriately removed a word and added blank indentation at the start of a paragraph, which the Wiki software makes into preformated text. I fixed it for you. HTH, -- Infrogmation 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First oath of office

The article at present says "Roosevelt did not swear on the Bible nor on any other book, making him unique among presidents." The first phrase of the sentence is sourced, the second had a request for a reference. This list on memory.loc was just given as a citation, but I am removing it because as far as I can see it does not actually confirm the final phrase of the sentence. This list of what presidents took the oath by lists several as "unknown". Unless we have a specific reference showing that all other presidents than TR took their oaths on a book, I suggest we change the phrase to something on the order of "Roosevelt did not swear on the Bible nor on any other book, contrary to the ususual tradition of US presidents." Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation 11:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the passage to a less sweeping claim per the above. -- Infrogmation 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

power of the presidency

The article currently says (without citation):

Overall, historians credit Roosevelt for changing the nation's political system by permanently placing the presidency at center stage...

Historians do generally agree that he did this, but whether they credit or blame him for it is another matter; that an expansion of presidential power was a good thing is a quite controversial thesis. A number of critics of neoconservatism, in particular, blame Roosevelt for setting a precedent whereby the presidency simply seizes power for itself. See, among other sources, Thomas Woods's 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, pp. 136–142 (admittedly not the world's most neutral source, but it was the first one handy; there are plenty of more sober analyses, from both the left and the libertarian right, that criticize Roosevelt on this point). As a more trivial point, Mark Twain was also not a fan of his policies ("insane & irresponsible"). --Delirium 09:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Views on Race

His views on Indians and countries peopled with an "inferior race" need to listed to make this article less hagiographic. I have accordingly added excerpts from "Winning the west" Indianminister 08:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Roosevelt, a white patrician of European heritage simply reflected the predominant world-view of his race and class, that the Anglo-Europeans were superior culturally to all other races. Think about it, however, this was an early 20th Century view. While not justifiable in the early 21st Century, before we call him a racist, etc, let's remember the context and the era. It's easy to pass judgement on people from the last century based on today's higher standards. Actually, TR was the first US President to invite a black man to dine in the White House, Booker T. Washington and he sought his counsel on federal appointments in the south. Also, TR decried and publically denounced lynching as degrading to both victims as well as perpetrators.

Re attitudes towards native Americans, this is discussed in a section above, while you mentioned in the article that TR thought the struggle between "civilization and savagery" why would this be suprising to you. The native Americans were locked in the proverbial Stone Age when the whites first came to North America. How do expect someone of Roosevelt's class, education and training would view paleolithic aboriginal inhabitants both in North America and in Australia? When TR was president, he severely criticized Indian fighter, Nelson Miles, for the massacre of Indians at Wounded Knee, writing to him, "In the Wounded Knee fight, the troops under your command killed squaws and children as well as unarmed Indians and armed Indians who had ceased to resist." Roosevelt also critized his leadership saying of Miles, "that you, who were not actually present, could not prevent these outrages, and could not have prefented them had you been present. Source. Nelson A. Miles, a Hero to His Men, by By Peter R. Demontravel, 1998, Kent State

Re his evolving attitude towards American Indians

Answer - TR said the following words about American Indians in a speech in January 1886 in South Dakota, which is readable in connection with the subject in hand. He is contrasting the cowboy with the indian. Interestingly, after attacking stereotypes of the cowboy as "ruffians and desperadoes" he goes indicates his contempt for the Indians that he had seen out in the Dakota territory and Wyoming where he went to hunt and ranch from approximately 1883-1886. Bear in mind the the Indians that he had seen were far from the sterotypical "noble red man" of earlier sagas. Many displaced Indians had been forced to survive by stealing the white man's cattle that had also displaced the American bison. Their actions were the direct consequence of their having lost the Wars of the Plains to the US Army. Having witnessed the slaughter of tens of millions of bison in both the great southern and northern herds, the Indians were more often than not cheated out of the US government's food allocations on their reservations by crooked agents. The story is widely known. Roosevelt simply reflects the popular Dakota stereotypes toward the defeated indians that the cowboys and ranchers with whom he had associated himself held. Here's what TR said: "My friends seem to think," said Roosevelt, "that I can talk only on two subjects-the bear and the cowboy-and the one I am to handle this evening is the more formidable of the two. After all, the cowboys are not the ruffians and desperadoes that the nickel library prints them. Of course, in the frontier towns where the only recognized amusements are vices, there is more or less of riot and disorder. But take the cowboy on his native heath, on the round-up, and you will find in him the virtues of courage, endurance, good fellowship, and generosity. He is not sympathetic. The cowboy divides all humanity into two classes, the sheep and the goats, those who can ride bucking horses and those who can't; and I must say he doesn't care much for the goats. "I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indian is the dead Indian, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Take three hundred low families of New York and New Jersey, support them, for fifty years, in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the 'cowboys who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers of the plains. As for the soldiers, an Indian chief once asked Sheridan for a cannon. 'What! do you want to kill my soldiers with it?' asked the general. 'No,' replied the chief, 'Want to kill cowboy; kill soldier with a club.' "Ranch life is ephemeral. Fences are spreading. all over the western country, and, by the end of the century, most of it will be under cultivation. I, for one, shall be sorry to see it go; for when the cowboy disappears, one of the best and healthiest phases of western life will disappear with him." Source: Roosevelt in the Bad Lands, Hermann Hagedorn (Boston, 1921), pp. 354-356

Pronunciation

OK, I can understand that people might often mispronounce "Roosevelt", but I've never heard anyone get the number of syllables wrong, which makes that comment seem strange and pointless. Simply stating that he pronounced the first vowel sound as a long O instead of a long U should be sufficient. - 66.93.200.116 (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and Justification and Whitewashing of Imperial Policy

Much of this article exhibits a strong bias towards justifying Roosevelt's imperialistic policies. That the Roosevelt Corollary was added to intervene 'when governmental corruption made it necessary', and that Roosevelt intended to 'help' "underdeveloped" nations seem particularly absurd an strongly exemplify a racist and paternalistic justification of violent intervention into Latin American nations. Considering much of T.R.'s legacy is cementing an aggressive imperialist approach to hemispherical affairs it is very important to amend this article. SDali2008 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Understand, but Roosevelt didn't "invent" imperialism but it was already a "going concern" and TR simply felt that the US as "Giant of the West" needed to not stand idly by while Britain, France and Germany gobbled up more countries. He didn't really realized the "price" that any Empire ultimately has to pay in blood, treasure and morality to hold together its empire, witness what the US's Iraq experience is costing it. SimonATL (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that our friend TR is entirely with out sin! how patriotic!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.48.161 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it suddenly important to frame Roosevelt's beliefs in a 21st century manner? Why is it so impossible to believe that he really did have these intentions when going on these imperialist adventures? This is the type of revisionist thinking that threatens to cloud what actually happened- sticking with the facts of the day and using the best possible sources is always the correct approach. Monsieurdl 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TR 'helped' Panama declare independance? Charging imperialism is hardly a 21st century critique, TR was widely attacked as an aggressive imperialist at the time. This article is strongly pro-Roosevelt, glorifying development in colonial possessions, ignoring popular opposition in the Philippines, the Platt Amendment and Domination of Cuba. This article regurgitates government rhetoric as fact. TR's role in imperialism is dramatic, using his involvement in the Spanish American War to catapult him to power. The Roosevelt Correlary marks a very important turning point in U.S. foreign policy, reversing the revolutionary Monroe doctrine and rejecting Central American sovereignty and asserting the U.S. as the active hemispherical hegemon. This article fails on several front, recognizing the historical importance of TR in forming the new American empire, establishing NPOV tone and analysis that delineates rhetoric from reality, glowing admiration of a controversial leader, and apologist appraisal of imperialism that should sicken anyone outside the U.S., as well as any Americans who seek an honest evaluation of U.S. action and the growth of American power. Much of TR scholarship is ignored, and it embarrasses the wikipedia community that this page is not NPOV tagged.68.56.175.198 (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Critic says the TR article "embarrasses the wikipedia community." This is interesting as I didn't know that he had polled the wikipedia community for its opinion of this article. But he has some good points, opposition to TR's policies on Cuba and Panama are not limited to modern times. In fact, there was an anti-imperialism movement that vehemently opposed the extension of American influence and control outside of the US and which extended into Cuba and the Phillipines. But let's remember TR did NOT invent the age of Imperialism. But he DID plug into the concept. By definition, this critic thinks that all aspects of so-called imperialism are evil and that all wikipedians would agree on this. But this is not established fact. Was TR controversial? Sure he was. Without a doubt, he moved more and more towards the recognition that the political institutions needed reform and he did it from municipal through state through federal positions and then finally into the White House. Interesting that this controversial leader is the ONLY US President who has been referred to and quoted by virtually every democratic and republican candidate in the 2008 US presidential campaign. Not only that in modern polls, in an age of highly polarized politics, in which George W. Bush was viewed as 6th best president by republicans and 6th worst by democrats, TR was placed in #5 position by BOTH republicans and democrats. Why is this so? Because he was just a jingoist imperialist? No - because, in many ways he epitomized the best aspects of BOTH major US political parties. As a republican he advocated high tarrifs and yet he demanded that both labor and management reach a settlement of a major coal strike. And he didn't call out the army to support the owners, either. He was the first truely environmental president setting aside 10% of the federal lands to preserve them for the future. He understood that there were places where only a strong federal government could solve regional and national problems. Look at his advocacy of strong federal support for irrigation in the West. He did this for all Americans. He was against the tyranny of either management or labor. He was essentially for what he called "the square deal" that benefited ALL Americans and not just any one group - both management and labor. While other Republicans fought against labor, Roosevelt, even though he was a life-long Republican, well understood that the US was coming into an industrial age in which there was a natural "combination" of industrial forces into the hands of an increasingly powerful group of the so-called "captains of industry." Not stopping with stand-pat resistance to labor organization, TR also realized and wrote and spoke extensively that there would also be natural and inevitable "combinations" as they were called in the late 19th Century and early 20th century of labor into organizations who would demand collective labor agreements. As for the Roosevelt Corralary to the Monroe Doctrine. TR put this forth not to absorb over every small Western hemisphere country, but rather to protect them from European powers seizing customs offices in port cities to extract debt payments. TR well understood that the Europeans would expand their influence from the ports right into the hearts of these small countries. He knew that an American guarantee of debt payment backed up by force sometimes, as in the example of the Dominican Republic when the US took over customs and balanced payments completly in only a couple years, kept the Germans, the French and British OUT of the Dominican Republic (DR) . When DR leadership literally offered the country to the US as a territory to be annexed and offered statehood, TR turned them down flat. Look at Cuba and the Phillipines, TR realized that only a reduction of tarriff barriers against these countries would help grown their economies. He fought against both republican and democrat opposition and the business interests to lower their tarrifs.

Sure TR was and is controversial, but he was the FIRST president since Lincoln to grasp growing national problems that had been ignored for over a half a century, face up to them and demand effective national strategies to address them. And to these problems he brought his world-class education, experience at all levels of government, a consistent policy of fairness, equity and the square deal and pushed and shoved an isolationist and increasingly socially polarized American society into the 20th Century. Of COURSE there were aspects of this pushing and shoving that need discussion in this article, but TR was no pinheaded cowboy jingoist, he brought a coherent imperialist view to both national and international issues and set the US on a course of growth that created the modern US society - yes, and for better or worse a much changed country from the post-Civil War country of his childhood.

Any country on earth would be blessed to have a national leader as well prepared for the demands of his age as was Theodore Roosevelt in his time. We can no longer afford on-the-job training for national leaders who are told what to think by their so-called handlers. We need leaders actually prepared for national leadership. SimonATL (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

TR did not seek to mimic the Eurpoean powers in creating an "empire," to some extent because it was not necessary. Europe used imperial possessions as sources of raw materials that could be sent to the mother country's industries. With its own abundant natural resources, America did not need this sort of empire. And as with many other terms, "imperialist" does not mean in 2008 what it meant in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Then it meant as described above - overseas possessions owned lock, stock and barrel by a mother country that administered them not for their own good but for the good of the mother country. America did acquire possessions after the Spanish-American War, but in the thinking of the day, to westernize them and thereby advance them. The "empire" was not conceived as permanent. Cuba was given its independence almost immediately. The Phillipines were promised independence and got it. Puerto Rico regularly holds free elections on what it wants to do, and if it ever chooses independence (which regularly come in last among the alternatives in these elections), it would get it. Paternalistic it might have been, misguided perhaps, but not an empire in the European sense. Today, "imperialist" it is used negatively to describe America as a country that wants to create an "empire" subservient to itself. In my opinion, that is not so. America is not imperialist, it is internationalist. We accept that today, but in TR's time, when isolationism was the mantra, it was a dirty word. America, in the past and still today, has always been, as TR knew, a force for good. The goal has not been to create mini-Americas, but rather to bring democracy and stability to parts of the world where it did not exist. (With TR then, and still today.) As an example, David Halberstam, a fine historian and wonderful writer, but to be fair, a man always alert to flaws in America and its policies, nevertheless points out in "The Coldest Winter," the democracy, freedom and economy of South Korea is a direct result of the American interest in and influence on the country. Versus the wasteland that is North Korea. Likewise consider the American "empire" in Western Europe after World War II and how it flourished as a bastion of democracy and economic progress because of American protection and, in the beginning, American money (the Marshall Plan). Compare it with the Soviet empire in eastern Europe kept in place with guns. (Remember Hungary in 1956?) And which no longer exists. TR sought to protect American interests in the Western hemisphere with the Roosevelt Corollary, take steps to protect America and its interests elsewhere through a well-thought out foreign policy backed by a fortified military (especially the Navy), and understood that the more the rest of the world looked like America in terms of democracy, economy and stability, the less America would be threatened. Some empire! His international projection of American ideals involved an international presence. But it took World War II and the role it forced on America after the war was won for Americans finally to accept Theodore Roosevelt's internationalism.

From a Theodore Roosevelt Association Member HarryH of Atlanta, GA

SimonATL (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

POV? Yes or No - Why? Let's wrap this up. What's the consensus?

Yes, the article contains a great many number of pluses, but they are aptly born out by many written sources. The article also contains discussions of some of TR's negatives, ego, immaturity, impulsiveness, big mouth, occasional lapses of candot - including quotes fro some of his biggest historical critics such as Henry Pringle (19310) which can continue to be expanded upon. SimonATL (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo problems

I realize that Wikipedia articles are encouraged to have uniform-sized illustrations. However, in the spirit of WP:IAR we should also realize that making a good article sometimes demands a few enlargements. Particularly photos of 50 men of which just one is the essay subject, sometimes defy even identifying the subject without fixing the photo. I've done that for 3 key black and whites in this article. See what you think. I also noted that there was very large empty space at one point, which provided room for a enlargement of the official portrait, which is about as good a visual impression as we have of the standing subject. So I blew that up, too. I hope it works on everybody's readers, and invite comment on this. Also, feel free to enlarge anything else in this article that gives you squints. I personaly had trouble even with a 21 inch viewer, and my eyes are fine. S B H arris 06:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

POV?

I am doing a paper for school about TR as a tyrannical leader...I know I shouldn't be looking at wikipedia to begin with, but I am just to get an idea. Anyways, this article is essentially all pro-Teddy. I feel like this is not right and not encyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.121.171 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is perfectly able to add good sourced material that showed his flaws and negative moments, but a)using appropriate language, not ego trip as an example, and b)judging him by the standards of today, which is not fair nor just is what I vehemently oppose. I'm all for improving this article, and will always encourage more! Monsieurdl (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article sometimes has overlooked some of the more negative aspects of TR's political life, specifically. Although I'm a member of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, I, for one, am not blind to this criticsm. Accordingly, I'm adding some more background where needed. For example, in the discussion of TR's role in the 1884 Republican National Convention, I added the following:

"Refusing to join other Mugwumps in supporting Democrat Grover Cleveland, the Democratic nominee, he debated with his friend Henry Cabot Lodge the plusses and minuses of staying loyal or straying. When asked by a reporter whether he would support Blain, Roosevelt replied that, "That question I decline to answer. It is a subject I do not care to talk about." [16] While Roosevelt complained, "off the record," about the Blain's nomination to a reporter upon leaving the convention, in probably the most crucial moment of his young political career, in 1884 the young Roosevelt resisted the very instinct to bolt from the Party that would overwhelm his political sense by 1912. When another reporter quoted Roosevelt saying that he had indicated that he would give "'hearty support'" to any decent democrat," in an account of the Convention, Roosevelt would later take great (and to some historical critics such as [[Henry Pringle|Pringle],) very disingenuous pains to distance himself from his own earlier comment indicating that it had not been for publication [17]."

Some historians such as Henry Pringle made a profession of reading as many negative and controversial readings into mostly TR's political conduct. His biography of TR, written in the 1930s, swung the balance of historical opinion sharply AGAINST TR. More modern books such as Edumund Morris and David McCullough have tried to restore balance and also to make use of newer historical data. SimonATL (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

On the POV or NON-POV issue, this article makes extensive use of historians such as Henry Pringle who were happy to point out TR's "vices" as well as his virtues. He was the supreme egoist and even one of his greatest admireres, Edmund Morris speaks of "his favorite person pronoun, I," but that said, by the time TR left Havard, the extent of his many talents was not only apparent to himself, but to all who got past his youthful emotionalism and enthusiasm. He never lost much of this intense personal energy and magnetism. You couple incredible intellectual gifts, a world-class education, the powers of observation of a trained naturalist and a trained historian, a mostly secure financial situation making daily survival not an issue except for the many self-imposed challeges Roosevelt made for himself, a strong body (after years of struggle) and an intense desire to "make something of himself" and what do you expect? When he died in 1919, he was almost universally considered the greatest living American. People from every civilized country celebrated his accomplishments. While some people spoke of his incredible ambitious and egoistic nature, let's remember the whys behind it and what was driving him? Wealth, drink, wine, women and song? No, he was clearly an intensely idealistic and romantic individual yet with an incredibly well-developed pragmatic sense. As he said, "Keep you eyes on the stars but your feet on solid ground." He never lacked the ability or willingness to demonize his political opponents and was forever convinced of the righteousness of his particular cause of the moment, but consider the causes he DID take up, political reform for his entire career. He never left an office remarkably unimproved, from a young New York assemblyman to the White House, he improved every office and organization he touched. Always the student, from day one, no matter what the job, he had done his homework and without exception amazed his new staff on his grasp of the issues of that particular office. This was true from youth to death. He was a century ahead of his time on the environment and on conservation. He was a century ahead of his time on international diplomacy. And in that capacity, he was as capable of incredibly deft and nuanced activity, when needed, as a heavy hand. Consider his handling of the Morroco Incident and the Russo-Japanese War. He had no illusions about the constraints nor restraints imposed on him by the particular geo-political situation. He seldom fought a battle he hadn't carefully analyzed couldn't win except the 1912 election - and even there, he was aiming to be a kick in the pants to both political parties that he saw dominated by politicians who did not have the public interest at heart and in that respect he was largely correct. I think his record of both personal and political "greatness" is clear.SimonATL (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While I largely agree with you (Morris, I think, likens TR to a locomotive, and that's about right), the article does have some defects of ommission. I think that the positives on TR that you mention are largely borne out by the judgment of historians about his presidency ranking in the top 5. Wiki neutrality only requires that significant minority opinions be represented by a minority of space.

Why do we need TR today? Because we need to read about a man who can give a speech minutes after being shot in the chest by an assassin. And a more innocent world in which he's allowed to do so (before Ghandi, JFK, RFK, MLK, Bhutto…). America seems to have lost something post-9/11, and our average citizens need to take something of the pluck of TR.

But the dark side of TR is that he was childlike in his egoism (which in adults we call egotism), and sometimes he went over the top, as in the spelling reform which the article mentions, but doesn't really underscore the significance of. This is real mania, on the verge of mental illness. People like this can accomplish amazing things (TR being prime example). But they can also be really dangerous, especially when lacking self insight. Brands makes a strong argument that this was a fairly significant flaw which went hand in hand with TR's greatest strength-- the Aristotelian hubris of the romantic hero. Yes, the article mentions ARL's comment that TR wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. And that's funny enough that there's not enough sober consideration given to the idea that it might be more or less true, and to Brands' assertion that TR was more or less incapable of seeing anybody who disagreed with him as other than corrupt, stupid, immoral, or cowardly. Sometimes all at once. And that's not good. If there was ever a human being who didn't WP:AGF, TR was that man. This needs a bit more discussion to give the full treatment of a man who lacked the introspection and self-mockery of (say) a JFK. It's just amazing TR didn't get into more trouble than he did. Consider that our present president with the horrid approval rating has only a fraction of the self-assurance-in-the-face-of-all-evidence, that TR had. But of course TR was saved many a time from disaster by his knowledge, energy, and other kinds of intelligence. Fascinating character. S B H arris 05:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the many insights into the POV/NPOV claim on this article and to the discussion on the positive as well as negative traits that made up Theodore Roosevelt.

So where do we stand? The VOTE:

POV? No - Why? True, the article contains a great many number of pluses, but they are aptly born out by many written sources. The article also contains discussions of some of TR's negatives, ego, immaturity, impulsiveness, big mouth, occasional lapses of candot - including quotes fro some of his biggest historical critics such as Henry Pringle (19310) which can continue to be expanded upon. SimonATL (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I Vote YES to remove the silly POV tag. Vidor (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I Vote YES (also) to remove the silly POV tag. Criticisms going back to TR's time and also from his most vociferous critics such as Henry Pringle (1932 bio) are also incorporated. Yes, he could be an egomaniac, a jingoist and an imperialist. So what, he's not on Mt. Rushmore for nothing. Yes, he DID advance his own personal interests, but they were almost totally consistent with the USA national interest as well. Critics and supporters agree on most of the positives as well as the negatives. He's NOT quoted by every USA 2008 presidential candidate for nothing! Remove the tag ASAP. And I'll do it myself unless I hear a good case for the POV, which I haven't seen yet. Here' what the critics should do -

1 Read his 30 plus books include his autobiography. #2 Read virtually every bio on him from Herman Hagedorn thru Constance Milard. #3 Read his speeches. #4 Read his letters to his children. #5 Read the tributes made to him at his death. #5 Read the German, British and Russian Emperor's personal letters on TR. They all thought him the most extraordinary man of his age and the quintisential American. Sorry, would be critics, he WAS an amazing American who forever changed the US presidency, fought his own party for the American people, single-handedly pushed thru the Panama Canal. Won BOTH the (Congressional) Medal of Honor AND the Noble Peace Prize, help found the world's FIRST conservation club, directly helped to found the World's FIRST national park, saving Yellowstone from crass commercialization, wrote the still definitive history of the origins of the US Navy, wrote the still definitive work on US western expansion, started the 1st US forest service, started the 1st US anti-trust litigation, put 10% (250 million acres) of the USA under federal protection, save the last surviving 100 Redwoods from destruction, founded the 1st national monuments in the USA and the first wild game sanctuaries. Worked in 6 languages. I could go on and on. These are ALL factually verifiable. I say NON POV. In fact, I'm going to add even MORE criticisms of him as I find them. But he was one HECK of a guy - an American Lion, if ever there was one! SimonATL (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor garble

The "Assassination attempt" section contains this sentence:

Roosevelt, as a very experienced hunter and anatomist, besides the fact he wasn't coughing blood meant the bullet had not completely penetrated the chest wall to his lung (he was correct), and so declined suggestions he go to the hospital immediately.

Something's a bit garbled here. Does "besides" mean that he had two reasons not to go? --207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Meant to read "decided", I think. Fixed. S B H arris 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

refimprove

I recently spent a considerable amount of time fact-tagging roughly 1/4 of this article (intending to finish later), which contains a large amount of unencyclopedic prose.[1] User Vidor later swept in and waved his magic wand, undoing all my hard work.[2] In light of this, I'm here to request the addition of a refimprove box at the top of the page. I'd do it myself, but like so much of Wikipedia, this article is apparently no longer a community project. I'd love to see how long the guardians of this article can tolerate their masterpiece being "defaced" by such an irreverent request for quality control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to think of it as "editing", but "magic wand" does sound more cool. By the way, sticking the word "fact" into an article thousands of times really isn't "hard work". Vidor (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the hard work is deciding WHERE they should go. I have a hard time believing that every single {{fact}} tag added was a bad one (I have no idea who the IP user above, is). So if somebody was being lazy, who was it more likely to be? Just WP:AGF and remove some of the tags you really don't like at all and think are outrageous, and leave the ones that are at least plausable. That will make this more of a community project. That said, remember, please, that in general articles can be assumed to be running factually on the last cite given, unless they switch to making some really outrageous or very quantitative comment. We don't need a cite for every sentence or even every paragraph. If we did, we'd need some "hidden" reference system, like the professional biographies being written today use. S B H arris 23:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the respect, SBHarris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

I've just read the article and I think the lead paragraph could do with a major re-vamping, it looks too long and un-tidy. AndreNatas (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

White supremacist beliefs?

From the article:

"Civilised man can only keep the peace by subduing his barbarian neighbour."

"Their life was only a few degrees less meaningless, squalid and ferocious than that of wild animals." (Justifying his role in slaughtering Indians in South Dakota.)

That says nothing about white supremacy, at all. --Windsock (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The run-on sentences in the 1884 convention

I decided to rewrite and repair all of the convoluted prepositional phrases in the final paragraph (The 1884 convention). Not only were they confusingly stacked, in unwieldy sentences, but there were unnecessary words that hindered the sentence flow. You can see the earlier versions for this. I think it reads better now.Dfoofnik (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted Teddy Roosevelt Impersonator

Just a brief mention of Mr. Jim Foote who regularly goes around the country (I've seen him in DC and in TR's home town, where I live) "performing" as President Roosevelt. Anyone who is a "fan, admirer and TR enthusiast" would probably agree mentioning Mr. Foote is appropriate or at the very least an interesting tid-bit. Dantali (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Small Typo

Sorry if this is really minuscule, but in the army template thing a ways down in the article detailing TR's command, his rank is listed as "Colonek", which I am assuming should be "Colonel" as the article itself states. This is a minor thing, but I don't have an account ATM, so if anyone agrees, it would be a good idea to change it? Thanks. 68.56.217.30 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Accurizer (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Only Sitting President

Theodore Roosevelt was the first American to be awarded a Nobel Prize (in any category) in 1906, and he remains the only sitting president to win the Nobel Peace Prize (for his part in ending the Russo-Japanese War). Jimmy Carter won the award as a former president.

What about Woodrow Wilson (1919)?

Also there is no "Nobel Peace Prize" Icon for Mr. Teddy Roosevelt like there is one for Al Gore. any editor who knows how to put one in please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.140.166 (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was one, but it got deleted about a month ago when the image was removed from the Commons. I've put it back. -- Zsero (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanksgiving Day proclamation

This quote from New York World is a journalistic satire, not a real example of spelling reform.

“

When nerly three centuries ago, the first settlers kam to the kuntry which has bekom this great republik, tha confronted not only hardship and privashun, but terible risk of thar lives. . . . The kustum has now bekum nashnul and hallowed by immemorial usaj..

”

Page 155 of Robert E. Kling's 1970 The Government Printing Office, has details on this, including the date of publication in the newspaper. Unfortunately, Google Books isn't letting me read the whole page on that.--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Brownsville shooting

This incident may in fact be important enough to Roosevelt's career that it does belong somewhere on this page, but the paragraph that keeps getting added to the "views on race" section seems to have parachuted in there at random. I appreciate that the IP editor is trying to be reasonable, and has trimmed down the unsourced editorialising that it used to contain, but now we need to decide whether it belongs on the page at all, and if so where? It also still needs cleaning up, since the latest version just isn't comprehensible English. But the more important question is where, if anywhere, to put it.

ETA: It is already at Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, where it occupies one sentence. It certainly shouldn't take up more space in the main article than it does in the sub-article. -- Zsero (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it’s important enough to be somewhere on the page. Since it is referred in one sentence however, I feel as though it’s enough. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives