Talk:Theodore Roosevelt/Archive 3

Cabinet of President T Roosevelt not shown.
Virtually every Wiki article on US Presidents includes the complete listing of the President's cabinet, showing their terms of office, etc. The TR article has no mention of his cabinet(s). Shouldn't it be included?

I found a useful looking starting pointing at a convenient www site: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1435.html

Full maiden name of First Lady
The full maiden name of First Lady Roosevelt was Edith Kermit Carow, but the linked article has her as Edith Roosevelt, so my change was obvious. --65.73.0.137

Food and Drug Administration
Theodore Roosevelt was instrumental in setting legislative courses in motion that would eventually lead to the advent of the Food and Drug Administration. He did so after a combination of two experiences: his time in Cuba with the US Army, where he saw many of his men get disgustingly sick on badly preserved meat rations supplied by American firms (who supplied the forces on a bid system similar to today's); and Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle. Roosevelt was often swayed by literature, and also by his personal experiences in the military. The two combined served as a mighty motivation in his food and drug policies. -- Benn M. 22:55, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Bully for TR!
To honor such a significant person with an exquisite article is most encouraging. CHAARRGE!

Article not found
I can access the TR article..

"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." is all I get. Even when I click the link on the main page.

However, some of the older versions work.

Also, I tried to fix the thing with the picture not showing, and it worked in the preview but I couldn't save.

Editing of page
Just thought I'd make a point that someone has spammed this page. Regard the first line

What?
Ok thanks. I didnt know it would ever actually work. :( —Preceding unsigned

I am doing a report on Theodore Roosevelt at scool. Great amount of info!

Gentlemen's Agreement
I think it important to specify the school segregation banned was of Japanese students. To just say 'school segregation' makes one think of African-Americans. Marfinan (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

roosevelt as a catch wrestler
does anyone here mind having a section devoted to roosevelt's interests in catch wrestling?

12.41.255.10 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Namesake(s)
Something has me puzzled- if President Theodore Roosevelt's father was Theodore Sr., then why is the president's son was "Theodore Jr." instead of the president himself? If anyone has the answer/reason why, then please do say what it is. Thesomeone987 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Thesomeone987


 * Yes, I suspected that was the reason you've been changing the information, you made an assumption without having a lick of proof one way or the other. That's the opposite of the way things should go.  If you think that Roosevelt should be a "Jr." go and do some research and find a source that supports that contention,  then  you can change the article with the citation from that source to support it.  (Or, even better, do that research without any preconceived notions of what the name should be, and go with what you find.) What you  don't  do is assume it must be that way, make the change, and hope that no one notices - that's the pattern of almost  all  of your edits, and it needs to stop. Until you have a handle on the way things work around here, I suggest that you do not make any changes to substantive information in an article unless you have a citation from a reliable source to support it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If TR wasn't a "Jr.", then someone should tell the editors of List of Presidents of the United States by nickname. - dcljr (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Third Place
This meant that Taft became the only incumbent President in history to come in third place in an attempt to be re-elected.

Strictly speaking, John Adams is another case. 151.200.47.86 (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

First head of state to fly in aeroplane?
It's been added as the last note but it should be expanded upon in the article as it's noteworthy achievement On October 11, 1910 one of Wrights' team’s pilots, Arch Hoxsey, took former President Theodore Roosevelt for his first airplane ride becoming the first U.S. President and head of state to ride in such a machine...reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.102.173 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The ref you provided is not sufficient for the claim you've made. It indeed says that TR was taken up on such-and-such date, for his first airplane ride, but it does not say anything about other Presidents or heads of state.  If you wish this claim to be included in the article, you're going to need a cite that supports the specific claim you're maiking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt
There is a "coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt" mentioned, depicted and described in his biography. However, many things about this seem "fishy"... firstly, it's by no means a coat of arms as it lacks a shield (look at its defintion on the wiki page) and not even a heraldic achievement - it's a heraldic device at best. Also, the article states that its origin lies in the 17th century ... what is depicted here includes the arms of the United States of America however, unlikely to be found in family arms of the 17th century. Does anyone have any information about this emblem please? Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks! ViennaUK (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the coat of arms from the article until its provenance can be established. I've also left a message on the talk page of User:Xanderliptak, the editor who uploaded it, asking him to comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The image certainly has a shield, though it is a Germanic-styled one and not a heater-style which is more commonly associated with British heraldry. There is no requirement on what the shape of a shield need be, what matters is the blazon is met and followed. The origin of the Roosevelt arms dates back to the 17th century, not the image, and often multiple emblazons are created through the years if the family has the interest and money to do so (though anymore the cost is relatively cheap with computer software and clip-art). You can read more on the Roosevelt arms here. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response - can you comment on what seems to me to be significant differences between the coat of arms you uploaded and the two examples given in the link you supplied, this one, and this bookplate – for instance the three small shields at the bottom, one of which has the stars and stripes of the American flag? Please feel free to explain in the most basic terms, because I know next to nothing about heraldry.  Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you restored the coat of arms with a reference -- which is good -- but since there are still questions pending, I think it would be best to leave it out of the article until everything is settled. I've commented it out again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess what I don't understand is this -- and, again, you're talking to a complete tyro here -- in translating the description of the coat of arms from words into something visual, how much artistic license is the "translator" given? If the coat of arms is:"Arms: Argent upon a grassy mound a rose bush proper bearing three roses Gules barbed and seeded proper. Crest:From a wreath Argent and Gules three ostrich plumes each per pale Gules and Argent. Motto: Qui plantavit curabit (He who planted will preserve)" as given in the link you provided, can those be depicted in any way, or are there limitations? And where, in the description, do those three small shields come into the image you uploaded? In other words in what respect can this be said to be the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt -- which to my mind implies something that he actually used (like the bookplate) -- and in what respect is it one person's interpretation of what that coat of arms might be if it were drawn up by the interpretor?  Is the coat of arms we're presenting to the public actually the official coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just the style of the artists, and coats of arms (especially the older ones) can often be seen depicted in various styles and fashions by different artists. An easy example to use is the British monarchs, here is a drawing of Queen Victoria's arms over a century ago, and here are those same arms that have been inherited by Queen Elizabeth II painted just a few years ago. As you can see, the styles are very different, but if you look closely you will see the symbols on there are the same, even if drawn in a different fashion. There is no such thing as the coat of arms, but each version is still the coat of arms of that person.


 * The smaller shields are merely allusions to identify Roosevelt, there being the U.S. arms for his role as President of the United States, the U.S. Navy's seal painted on a shield for his role as Secretary of the Navy and the arms of New York for his various government roles there. This style can be seen here.


 * [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are two questions that concern me. The first is, is this the coat of arms Theodore Roosevelt?  I think I get your point about the coats of arms of Victoria and Elizabeth showing a distinct difference, so that renditions of the coat of arms can change - but those coats are both official are they not?  If someone with heraldry software and a computer was to use the description of Elizabeth's coat of arms to create their own interpretation of it, there's no way that that could be said to be her actual coat of arms, right?  I'm getting the impression that the image you uploaded was not somethting that was ever used or approved by Roosevelt, but instead is your own interpretation of what the coat of arms might have been -- am I correct in that feeling?  And if I am, then I don't see how we can put that in an article and say that it is  the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt, as it is something he never saw, or used or approved of. My other concern is with what appears to me to be perhaps artistic license on your part, the "allusions" to Roosevelt's history at the bottom.  As opposed to the other part, where it appears that you are following the official description of the coat of arms, are these things that you took the liberty of adding in?  Is there any reference from a reliable source to verify that these things were used in some form by Roosevelt, as opposed to your own interpretation of what allusions might have been added? I hope you can see the core problem that I'm circling around: we need to present things to our readers which are not only facts, but are facts which are verifiable by reference to reliable sources, and it seems that, perhaps, there's a fair amount of what I would called original research in the coat of arms you uploaded, if I am correct in my assumptions.  If I am, then I have grave doubts about their usability in the encyclopedia, but I'm willing to be educated if I'm way off base. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an official coat of arms an you imply. There are many official renditions used at any given time and Queen Elizabeth II, to continue her as an example, has easily had more than 1000 official versions made up, each unique and different from the other. All "official" entails is that the government approved the artist to create it, but that does not give that example any special meaning. Likewise, no Roosevelt was instrumental in the design of his bookplate, drawing,painting, wood carving or any other rendition, each and every example was what the artist who was hired came up with. It is not original research (many people unfamiliar with heraldry have tired to bring this issue up before, but it is always rejected), because it is based on the blazon which describes what the coat of arms looks like, so there is nothing original about it. It is based on actual references, traditions and customs.

It would be like reading a description that described a red circle painted on a green box, and so you draw and colour it in as described. Someone comes along and says that you have drawn a red circle on a green box, yes, but since the dimensions were not given you can not be sure that the box you drew was the box in the description, perhaps your ratio for your box is different form the original. However, just because there is leeway in the description does not mean it is original research because it is indeed based on the description. Any box will suffice, any ratio, so long as it is a green box. Likewise, any rendition is the coat of arms of Roosevelt, so long as it meets the standards of the blazon. Blazon allows for much leeway in certain aspects, which seem to be what you are focusing on, but in others it is very rigid, which is all that really matters in ehraldry. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  04:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That argument would seem to cover my first question, about the interpretation of the words to create a coat of arms. It certainly seems plausible, but I don't necessarily accept your contention that any interpretation of a coat of arms is necessarily legitimate, nor am I at all certain that this is a question which has been permanently decided on Wikipedia, so I will probably post some notes around in various places to see if I can get some other eyes here to comment. But in any case, your argument does not in any respect address my second question, about the three "allusions" on the bottom. It seems to me that you are, without actually saying so, acknowledging that those "allusion" are something added by you, for which you have no verifiable source, as you do with the rest of the coat of arms.  If that is correct, I cannot see how that can be acceptable for use here, as it's clearly your own interpretation.  If I am wrong about their being original additions by you, please correct me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is goverened by traditions and customs, and I provided an example. It changes nothing to the coat of arms. You can post any questions to the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. I will be restoring the coat of arms infobox since it is sourced and no specific heraldic issue was brought up, rather you have questions about trying to understand heraldry. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  05:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not restore the coat of arms until this discussion is concluded. I have posted notices on the Heraldry Project talk page, on the Original Research noticeboard, and on WP:AN. If there are other places you think should be notified, let me know, or please so do yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, it is not only the rules and traditions of heraldry that are at question here, and on thsoe grounds you may well be correct, but also the policies of Wikipedia concerning verifiability and the need for relaible sources. Even if you are correct about the amount of artistic license allowed in the presentation of coats of arms, the reference you provided supports the top of the drawing, not the "allusions" on the bottom, which seem to be original additions of your own.  Please do not edit war to restore controversial material to the article which is not properly sourced. There's no reason to rush here, if we get some additional comments, and I'm totally wrong about this matter, then the image can go back in. In the meantime, while there is a question about it, it's not proper for you to continue to restore it to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not remove sourced information without reason or cause, especially information that has been in an article for some time without any issue. You have already admitted to not being at all familiar with heraldry, so your personal reservations are not based on any information or facts, any knowledge on heraldic customs or traditions. An argument of "I want it taken down because I don't understand it" is not valid. Please provide a source to contradict the reference given to take it out. Also, I am not the one who rushed to remove sourced material. Do not try to argue patience with me when it is you who will not wait for someone more familiar with the subject to explain it to you. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  05:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see your argument as valid, because parts of the image you created are not sourced by the reference you provided. Show me a citation that indicates that the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt contained or should contain these "allusion" and I'll drop my complaint, but in the meatime, the image is not fully sourced, and your restoration of it in the middle of this discussion seems improper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a breath
Let me come at this from another direction, to see if I can get you to understand my concern. Suppose another person was to create a coat of arms using the reference you provided, but instead of the three "allusiona" you put in, they decided that the three should be a Teddy Bear, a Big Stick, and a depiction of San Juan Hill (or whatever the hill's realname was). They then uploaded their coat of arms. What criteria do we use to choose between these two qquite different images? Both correspond to the heraldic devices you presented in your reference, both have allusions to events in Roosevelt's life, which one is properly "the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to go back a bit to your argument that no coat of arms is "official" - I have great difficulty seeing that as being true. Someone had to have that bookplate made for TR, and if TR used it, then he accepts it, and it's official. In your case, you've made, well after his death, a version of what might have been Theodore Roosevelt's coat of arms had he had the opportunity to see it and approve it. Since he didn't I just don't see how you can present it -- with those allusions that you apparently added on your own -- as being "the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument is a bit flawed, because you are focusing on the irrelevant background and not the relevant subject of the photo. Here, take a look at the arms of Captain James Cook; the flags, laurel branches and cannons are not part of the coat of arms but were added as part of artistic license. Embellishments are quite common, you're arguing against a common tradition.


 * Think of it this way, you ask me to draw a turtle and I come back and with a drawing of a turtle in some grass. You did not ask for grass, but it is there. It is still a drawing of a turtle, though, and you can't say it's not simply because I added grass. Yet, that is what you are doing here. You are paying attention to the grass, and not the turtle.


 * What exactly is an "official" coat of arms? I know a bit about heraldry, and I have never heard of such a coat of arms as you want to exist. Just because that is how you wished it was or that is how you thought it was does not make it so. These are not like logos or trademarks that can not deviate form a central design there is no one absolute and perfect rendition. There just isn't. Look at the source I cited, even Roosevelt didn't stick to one design, because there is no one design. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  06:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What I believe would be proper, if a free image of the coat of arms actually used by the subject is not available, is for our articles to carry an unadorned, unaugmented coat of arms supported by the description as you provided. Adding anything on the basis of "artistic license" may be perfectly acceptable by the rules and tradiitons of heraldry, but I do not believe it adheres to the rules and policies of Wikipedia. And why, exactly, are we not using an actual image of Roosevelt's coat of arms, such as he himself used on a bookplate? This should be well out of copyright now, and freely available for use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I take some exception to what you're saying, Xander, though I agree with it in bulk. While there is artistic licence for an heraldic artist to interpret the blazon broadly, I am not at all familiar with any convention allowing for adding embellishments. Can you please provide a reference for same? I am completely unaware of any convention which allows an heraldic artist to add elements that are not described in the blazon. The arms are the blazon, period, and nothing more or less. Beyond My Ken, perhaps a better way to explain this to you... you think the representation of the arms is what matters, yes? That is not in fact the case. Blazons are much more like recipes; Mrs Fields has a single recipe for e.g. their chocolate chip cookie. That is the important thing. Anyone, possessing the recipe, could make a reasonable facsimile thereof. So there's that.
 * However, this is all fairly abstruse heraldic knowledge which not a lot of people know, which gives us the problem you are having; you feel that presenting a given cookie as a Mrs Fields cookie is inappropriate unless it was actually made by Mrs Fields. In one sense, you're right, but you're only right out of totally understandable ignorance of how heraldry works.
 * All that being said, it is true that there are 'official' coats of arms inasmuch as they are the ones approved for use by the holder of the arms. For example, the representation of the Arms of Canada currently in use has been personally approved by The Queen and is thus 'official' for government use.
 * And with all of that being said: the reference in question does not support the adornments added to the image. It supports only the blazon, and any depiction which follows only the blazon is both heraldically correct and properly sourced. → ROUX   ₪  06:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Roux: Your "recipe" analogy is helpful, it solidifies what I've been coming to understand from this discussion, but you've also hit the nub of my problem as well, the embellishments which are not supported by the blazon. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

@Xanderliptak: I know that we aren't going to agree, but just so we can be clear, I accept for sake of argument that everything you've said about the traditions of heraldry is true, that great artistic license is allowed in creating a coat of arms in the real world. Now, can you please tell me under the rules and policies of Wikipedia, why your image should be in the article, since it is not entirely supported by the referenced source, and you admit to adding elements to it under "artisic license"? And can you please answer my question about the Teddy Bear version, and what criteria we are supposed to use to choose between these two images, since they are both supported by the referenced source to precisely the same degree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Teddy Bear version would not be supported by the blazon, and thus would not be permissible for use in Wikipedia. I have asked Xander for a reference indicating that there is a convention that heraldic artists may add elements not noted in the blazon. My understanding is that such a practice would fly in the face of the traditions and rules of heraldry. → ROUX   ₪  06:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why, that is very nice that is what you want with heraldic images. Will you then be editing all photos of coats of arms to be rid of external elements? There are plenty of images on Commons you will have issues with that need your attention. You may want to write some nasty letters to the HM The Queen's College of Arms, can you believe the continue to this day to add embellishments and adornments to coats of arms of Her Majesty and others? I find it peculiar that you, admitting that you knew nothing about heraldry, are dictating how heraldry should be presented, dictating against centuries of custom and tradition.


 * As for copyright, it is held by the artist and not Roosevelt. And at the time of those bookplates, copyright was for something like 120 years after first publication, not for 120 years after creation. Even if the images were published during the lifetime of Roosevelt, it still means potential copyright up to 2029. Oh, and they are not in colour.


 * As for what policy permits me to add small shields under the coat of arms, No original research does. The image section there is very short, I think you are confusing it for the policy on articles and what may be included. The policy on images is much more relaxed, allowing any image "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". There is no unpublished idea being illustrated here, no new idea. You don't like the composition, but composition isn't original research. More examples are here, here, here and here. Need more?




 * To ROUX, as for adding embellishments, I gave an example above with Captain James Cook above you should look at. The coat of arms must be the coat of arms, but there is nothing preventing you from adding things around it so long as it does not change the shield and crest, because that is not part of the coat of arms. In Italian heraldry particularly, adding wreaths, swords, canon, other weapons and flags are quite common, see this, this and this. In British heraldry, it is popular to add whole scenes and stories around one's arms, like this. Look through Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide to Heraldry to see some examples. I have two different printings of the book, so if you have it, perhaps I can even help with page numbers. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  07:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples--bookplates--you have provided are of things which are frequently ornamented beyond belief. To put it more carefully: these are bookplate designs which happen to use the achievements of the owners as design elements. While there may be examples of this being done, can you please point to a reference that indicates this is a common heraldic practice? As for WP:NOR, you have yourself quoted exactly why the adornments cannot be used; "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." The adornments are not supported by the reference used, which is only the blazon. → ROUX   ₪  07:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Xanderliptak: I believe you are wrong about copyright at the time. I'd have to do some research, but I think the standard back then was 14 years, with one renewal.  The "life of the author plus" stuff didn't come in until sometime in the late 1970s when copyright law was overhauled.  In any case, anything published in the US before 1923 is now in the public domain, and that would (obviously) include the bookplate, because TR lived from 1859-1919. Since it is in the public domain, I've uploaded the image of the bookplate to Commons, and I propose that it should be in the article rather than the current image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The bookplates, being heraldic depictions, provide published precedence. If you want non-bookplate examples in addition, see the Earl of Worcester painting above and all of the drawings I linked for you specifically, ROUX. Then, if you get a few heraldry books, such as Fox-Davies like I mentioned, I can direct you to more. Composition is not an idea or argument, it is artistic license and outside the purview of the original research policy. But, even if you want to cite it, which you apparently still do, I showed published examples of heraldic work which depict the same idea. Doesn't matter if some are bookplates, there is no policy that says bookplates are exempt. Even still, I presented other works that were not bookplates. I met all criteria, at this point it is merely a matter of I just don't like it.

And anything published before 1923, you say? You have the date of it's first publication? Keep in mind that publication is different from creation, not that you can be sure the image is actually a bookplate made during Roosevelt's lifetime and not one made in posterity. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  07:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, there's no call to be snide, and there's not a drop of IDONTLIKEIT about my arguments, as I think is plain. Let's keep this civil, shall we? The other possibility is that the article could use your design with the embellishments removed.  With what I've been taught here by you and Roux, I can't see where that would violate any Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And what is exactly wrong with the embellishments? Since I posted something close to a dozen pieces to show precedence, as well as requesting you two look through a few heraldry books where you could see even more. That doesn't leave any room to say the embellishments are outside of heraldic practices. You can even browse through Commons and find plenty more examples, though that is a daunting task. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  08:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, you're confusing heraldic practice and Wikipedia policies. You've got a reference for what the blazon is, so any coat of arms we present should either be an actual example of the coat of arms as used by the subject, or a representation of the blazon.  That heraldic practice allows you to embellish the coat of arms is fine, but that doesn't mean that you can present that embellished coat of arms in a Wikipedia article and call it "the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt", because what's supported by a reliable source is the blazon only.  Similarly, the concept of "fair use" in American copyright law is broader than the non-free image policies that we have to adhere to on Wikipedia.Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Xander, it's not a difficult question. Can you provide a textual reference which states unambiguously that heraldic artists--as opposed to bookplate designers--may embellish arms with elements not provided in the blazon, or not? Your odd assertion that heraldic artists are given artistic licence beyond what is depicted in the blazon is not only bizarre, it flies in the face of everything that regulating heraldic achievements is supposed to do, namely that arms must be depicted accurately according to the blazon, must be unique, and must be easily identifiable. According to you Beyond My Ken could create a version with teddy bears, and I could create a version with a label reading OMG TR 4 PREZ!11!!1111!! and they would be just as accurate as one which only contains elements listed in the blazon. This is patent (pardon the pun) nonsense, and I would really like you to provide a reference which states that it is so. → ROUX   ₪  08:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If heraldic practice allows embellishments, then it is allowed my the policy regarding images. Again, the image policy is far more liberal and is very brief, and only forbids new and unpublished ideas. Therefore, it is not in violation of the policy you stated. Leaving only IDONTLIKEIT.


 * Fair use only applies to images which can not be reproduced, but coats of arms can. And the image does show the arms of Roosevelt, so why can it not be captioned as the arms of Roosevelt? Because there are other elements in the background? So what? Backgrounds are ignored all the time because they are irrelevant, why do you focus on them so much? [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  08:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't actually shown that heraldic practice allows embellishments that are not supported by the blazon. Can you provide an actual reference which states that it is? → ROUX   ₪  08:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I provided plenty of examples already establishing precedence. You want a textual example, pick up Fox-Davies book, which I already suggested twice. Not that I need to since I provided pictorial evidence. If I have a picture showing the shy is blue, I don't need to show you an article saying the same. Anyways, those bookplates were the work of Canada's Niagara Herald. He isn't a bookplate designer, he is a herald and heraldic artist, his official role is painting coats of arms for the Canadian Government's Heraldic Authority. He happens to do bookplates upon request as well, but if anyone would be able to know and adhere to heraldic practices in bookplates it would be a herald, especially one that is charged with painting arms for the Government. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  08:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I have already said, bookplates are by their nature heavily ornamented and are using the achievements as artistic elements. If it is such a widespread practice that heraldic artists may at any time embellish achievements of arms with elements not supported by the blazon, surely an authoritative source has stated this. Please provide a quote which supports your assertion. You're the expert here, it should surely be no trouble to you to provide proof that we are in fact incorrect. I note you have failed to address the points made by both myself and BMK, namely, that we could quite easily upload versions with bunny rabbits and teddy bears that according to you would be just as heraldically correct as one without any embellishments. Again, your assertion flies in the face of how heraldry works, so please provide an actual reference of an authoritative source stating that you are correct. Your refusal to do so leads me to believe that no such statement exists and it is in fact not heraldic convention or practice to embellish arms whenever they like. Please prove me wrong. → ROUX   ₪  08:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopedia for the general public, not only for those knowledgable about heraldry. If John Q Sixpack looks at an picture which he's told is the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt, how is he supposed to know that only the helmet and the roses and the motto and so on are actually the coat of arms? He sees the American flag, and the other embellishments, and he goes away with the firm idea that Theodore Roosevelt's coat of arms has the Americna flag in it. Can't you see how we have misrepresented a piece of information to him by including elements that are not actually part of the coat of arms, and that we have an obligation to our readers to provide an accurate representation of the blazon?  Isn't our purpose to provide accurate information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is also an important point. → ROUX   ₪  08:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are now arguing in circles. I directed you to books to read. I provided ample illustrative evidence. Only half were bookplates, not that bookplates are excluded by any rule or policy. The bookplates are what you chose to focus on, but that is fine. Those bookplates are the work of the Niagara Herald. He is an official herald, one of those guys that are in charge of heraldry. Now you ignore the work of heralds, about heraldry, what else could I provide for you then? You wont go look up the book, won't take heraldic paintings, won't take bookplates and won't take heralds' work. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  09:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have told you exactly what I will take: a quote from an authoritative source supporting your position, which is in direct contrast to everything I have been taught about heraldry. Presumably you own this book (I do not, and at 5am it is rather difficult to go to the reference library and see if they have it), and so presumably you have a quote which states unambiguously that heraldic artists may embellish arms as they wish with elements not found in the blazon. Can you provide such a reference or can't you? It is a very simple question. → ROUX   ₪  09:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You declined to recognize the work of a herald, who are the supreme authorities on heraldry, so what would you count as an "authoritative source" if not a herald?
 * Again. I would like a direct quote supporting your assertion. Got one or not? → ROUX   ₪  09:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look. According to you, this is as perfectly accurate an heraldic representation as your embellished version. That is quite clearly nonsense. And that is why I am requesting an actual quote stating that your position is accurate. Your refusal indicates to me that no such quote exists. Prove me wrong. → ROUX   ₪  09:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, in Fox-Davies. Read through it, it is a big book though. But I am guessing you will want me to read through it to find an exact quote, hunh? Well, then, how about I do that, but since I provided visual evidence to support me, here, here, here and here, you find a quote which specifically forbids such artistic expression. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  09:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the heraldic depiction is accurate in that image. Simply adding words below the coat of arms does not make the coat of arms wrong somehow. You can argue whether or not to include the rest as an editorial decision, but you can't do it on grounds it is heraldicly inaccurate. Also, with illuminated manuscripts and miniatures, there is a long history of text being written beneath coats of arms as well, see this. So again, it is a mater of editorializing and consensus, not heraldic practice. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are the one making the claims which are not supportable by known facts about how heraldry works. It is therefore incumbent upon you to prove the assertion. Your continued evasion of this point, as well as several others (most notably BMK's point above about the teddy bear and my point illustrated by this image), has by now proven to me that there is no such convention and it is merely your opinion. Your post-edit-conflict comment saying that my version is heraldically correct and suddenly saying this isn't about heraldic practice is, frankly, baffling; you have been arguing all along that it is established heraldic practice that heralds may embellish arms as they see fit. As such, not a single argument you have raised here in support of including these odd embellishments is valid in any way shape or form. Contrariwise, the points raised by both BMK and myself--namely that material used must be supported by the reference given--have a solid grounding in Wikipedia policy and practice. Additionally, you have not provided a single reference supporting Roosevelt's use of these embellishments. Both of these points taken together quite clearly prevent the original research you have put in the images, no matter how nicely painted, from being included in any Wikipedia article anywhere. → ROUX   ₪  09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I already addressed your issues, which seemed to have been ignored. And just as I am stating it is allowed in heraldry to add any embellishments outside the shield (which I provided ample visual proof), you are asserting it is against heraldic practice to do that, which means it is equally incumbent upon you to prove your statement. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  10:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not, actually, the case. You are making the extraordinary assertion. You are saying that when Cathy Bursey-Sabourin drew the Artms of Canada she could have included some drawings of bunny rabbits and moose on the patent and she would have been perfectly heraldically correct to have done so. That is blatant nonsense and since you are the one asserting it, you are the one who must prove it. Again, however, your continued refusal to do so and your evasion of direct questions posed to you has quite conclusively shown that no such convention exists. The fact that when drawing bookplates artists have provided embellishment is in no way proof that doing so is heraldically correct. Your further refusal to provide any reference supporting Roosevelt's use of the embellishments you added also proves there is no such reference and it is merely your original research. Which isn't allowed here. End of discussion unless and until you can actually provide references supporting your positions. I won't be holding my breath. → ROUX   ₪  10:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

After discussing the various shield shapes and how ornate they became, Fox-Davies says, "Later came the era of gilded embellishments, of flowing palms, of borders decorated with grinning heads, festoons of ribbon, and fruit and flowers in abundance." He then shows two examples of elaborate embellishments, one show a pavilion with weapons strewn about as you witness a skirmish to the side, the other shows the parts of a naval war ship and naval ensigns at sea. He continues about the artisans who made these elaborate adornments to arms, "With the school of design it adopted, little or no sympathy now exists, but a short time ago... no other style was known or considered by the public... The external decoration of the shield was carried to great lengths..." [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So there was such a convention. And now there is not. → ROUX   ₪  10:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get that? He says the convention is not found with sympathy, that is a generalization, but does not mean it extinct. I provided a quote stating external embellishments are historical, I have linked images of coats of arms from that time period as visual proof, and have linked many more modern example to show there is precedence for the style displayed here. The reverts you and others are making are disruptive, as I have sourced my position yet you continue to edit on your gut feelings that I, the Niagara Herald, various heraldic artists and a well-respected heraldic-writer are all wrong. You have cited no source contradicting all of this besides what you "feel". Time to either provide what evidence you are basing your opinion on or succumb to the fact you were incorrect on this matter. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  10:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Naah. You go right ahead and keep editwarring to keep an unencyclopedic image created entirely through original research in the article. Who cares if it has nothing to do with accurate heraldic representation? Who cares if it quite clearly misleads the reader into thinking Roosevelt's arms were something they were not? Who cares if the image is absolutely and uncategorically not supported by the reference? Who cares that you are making outrageous assertions that are only tenuously, at best, supported by the elided quotes you provided? It's not like we're trying to write an encyclopedia here or anything. Note that at no point do your quotes indicate that the usage was heraldically correct, just that it existed. There is a vast gulf between the two. But it hardly matters... you go on, misinforming the public. Clearly you have much more invested here than silly little people who want to make sure that readers get, and see, factual representations supported by references. → ROUX   ₪  10:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No sources? No references? After bickering about how visual evidence was not enough, that I also needed a quote, you just shrink away with petty insults? Fine, this matter seems closed now. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  10:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually what you needed was an unambiguous quote stating it was an heraldically correct convention. Which you did not provide. Of course, after seeing your website, your grasp of correct heraldic practice seems... shaky, at best. Your continued evasion is beyond tiresome, your insistence on using completely unreferenced original research is ''excplicitly forbidden by policy, and I am going to bed. → ROUX   ₪  10:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

 * Xanderliptak is correct that heraldic artists have quite a bit of artistic license, so long as the description in the blazon is met. XL noted the cannons in File:Captain_Cook.jpg as an example. However, this seems controversial on Wiki. I can think of two other discussions. One image had a variation in the rendering of charges that some editors thought was significant; it was resolved without modification. The other image had some embellishments; that was resolved by calling the image a "rendition" in the image caption, with some explanation of the embellishment on the image page. Would that work here? Is that a potential way to resolve the dispute about this particular image? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The way to resolve it is for XL stop dodging the perfectly simple question he's been asked and either provide a direct reference for his extraordinary claim -- not a handwaving interpretation of it -- or admit it's his personal interpretation violates WP:NOR. Your vague recollections don't really count as any sort of evidence -- or even help -- as a path to resolution. --Calton | Talk 13:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Specifically, use of File:COAppiusix.png was opposed because the supporters held something that wasn't mentioned in the blazon. The resolution was to caption the image a rendition of the coat of arms rather than the coat of arms. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference is that that was a historical image, here we have a brand new image. It seems a bit silly in this case to have a newly created image with extraneous elements, and then explain away those elements in a caption or footnote. It's easier (and more logical) simply to use a new image that doesn't include those elements in the first place. Which brings me again to a question I asked above: I can certainly understand a new image being created from the the heraldic "recipe" when there are no images extant or available of a subject's coat of arms, but why are we using a new image in this instance, when we have a PD image of the Roosevelt coat of arms in practical use, on the bookplate?  What's the justification for that. Certainly Xanderliptak's image is more colorful, but that hardly seems to justify using it over an actual historical instance of the coat of arms in use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I know there are a couple wikipedians like XL who create new renderings of old coats of arms, and unless the old image is significant in itself, I generally support that. (The historical image I linked was probably a bookplate, but it was also used as an example in a book on heraldry.) This discussion is quite long, so I may have missed something, but it looks like the complaint centers around the three shields at the bottom. So, would everyone be satisfied if those were removed, and if so, would XL agree? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's already happened. I uploaded an altered version of Xanderliptak's image without the three shields, and DrKiernan put it into the article (and two others) with an edit summary indicating that the embellishments were original research. Xanderliptak does not agree with that and wants his original image restored to the article. (Although most of the discussion is here, there is also some discussion between XL and DrKiernan on DrK's talk page.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, while I accept the contention that, in general, bookplates can be problematic, does that apply to the specfic bookplate image we have available (which is posted above in this discussion)? From my extremely limited knowledge, it seems to illustrate the blazon adequately, and it's an actual historical example of the coat of arms as used by TR.  Surely that makes it perfectly acceptable as an image for the emblem infobox, with a caption saying it's a bookplate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to read all of this because I've read enough. The blazon is what has to be included in the design. if it specifies mantling, you use that mantling if mantling is included, etc. If it only specifies the shield then all other ornaments are fair game. As long as it depicts the shield and it is noted that that is his shield, it's fine. It doesn't make the rest original research. Arms are not logos. They are descriptions translated into images. As long as that base message is present, it is fine as long as nothing incorrect is implied, liking adding the coronet of a British earl. Seven Letters 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So your take is that a version of the coat of arms with, say a Teddy Bear where the US flag is (see here), is perfectly acceptable, as long as it shows the information in the blazon? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there are points where it gets silly but my take was based on some of your earlier comments and assertions. Even still though, if they only free image was something like that, we might have to say "this image contained the heraldic shield of the Roosevelt family - referencing the part of the image itself. Seven Letters 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The bookplate image is perfectly adequate, we do not need editors doing their own thing and dismissing historical verifiable versions. The business of extras being added has come up before and it should not be done, it implies something which is not in the source and so is synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I addressed all of the issues, I provided a quote from a heraldic writer, Fox-Davies which said extra embellishments are historical. I prvided examples of extra embellishments used in the 18th century with Captain James Cook, and several examples of modern additions by the Niagara Herald in Canada and the heraldic artist Marco Foppoli. All evidence supports the image in question, and not one single source has been presented that says contrary. Just a couple of people unfamiliar and only slightly familiar with heraldry that "feel" it shoudl be different. Consensus does not work by vote count, but by facts. The facts are in agreement, the image is acceptable based on long running custom and tradition still found today. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  21:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Got a single reference supporting Roosevelt using your embellishments? No? Then we don't use it. Period. → ROUX   ₪  21:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have sources that say embellishments are accepted tradition. I never claimed this to be a rendition ordered or used by Roosevelt, just that it is his coat of arms, which it is. Have any source that says otherwise? No. You're just arguing IDONTLIKE. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am arguing that we should neither mislead readers nor include original research. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but this is an encyclopedia and we do have silly little rules about requiring information presented to readers to be verifiable. Frankly, your COI here doesn't help either, but I don't see much need to get into that when your additions are clearly and explicitly forbidden by the policy on original research. Your 'sources' saying embellishments are accepted tradition aren't exactly carrying much water here, but we've covered that already, as have other commenters here. I won't even get into the logical fallacy and complete nonsense of requiring someone to prove a negative, sheesh. → ROUX   ₪  22:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you do need sources for your statement. All statements need to e verified, see Verifiability. You challenged my statement, and I backed it up with sources and historic images of the style. I challenged your statement and you came with "You can't expect me to do the same as you and give you evidence of what I say." You are no expert, and you have no sources, so what do you have? Nothing. Just IDONTLIKEIT. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having a problem with the idea that anyone who makes a picture that includes specified elements (subject to additional content based on "artistic license") has created something that is properly encyclopedic. If I make a really cool cartoon of a political figure, using the physical features identified by expert cartoonists as verified by citations, is that something that must be posted here on WP?  I've done a great drawing of "Richard Nixon" with a pointy nose, huge jowls, and slumping shoulders.  I could show you citations supporting those elements if you like...but I don't really expect that my drawing would be considered useful or appropriate in an encyclopedia (although a cartoon published by Conrad or another known contemporary cartoonist might be).  Oh, and my kid made some great pictures of Martin Luther King to go in her term paper for her social studies class; shall I scan them and post the gallery? Steveozone (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can upload them. Why not? As to whether or not they will be used is up to editors, if it is the best image to use. In the case of Nixon and King, no, because there are free photographs for use. As for here, there are no free colour images to use. An encyclopedia does not require the images used be landmark or historic, simply accurate. The arms are accurately displayed here, and that is not contested. The practice of embellishing arms with smaller shields is also supported. Look at Duke of Norfolk, where clip art is used to recreate the shields, not even the full coat of arms. Why is that considered acceptable, but a painting of the full arms not? This is just a case of IDONTLIKEIT by a couple of editors grasping at straws, throwing all kinds of policies out to see what sticks, because they know IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Xanderliptak: At this point, six editors have given you a number of valid reasons, grounded in Wikipedia policies, why your original image is not appropriate to use, but you continue to aver that there is no policy basis for rejecting it, simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Frankly, I'm getting a little insulted at your continuing to say that, because it is most certainly not true,  and I'm definitely starting to get put out that you're not making any effort to understand what's been explained to you in numerous ways by numerous different editors.  I suggest that you read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because such behavior, if willfully continued against a clear consensus, such as is the case here, can result in an editor being blocked. I appreciate that your knowledge of heraldry is vastly superior to mine - I fully admitted here to being a complete tyro - but, on the other hand, your understanding of Wikipolicy seems as deficient as my understanding of heraldry was.  You were good enough to school me a tiny bit about heraldry, which I appreciate, but you don't seem inclined to allow the favor to be returned and listen to what I and other editors are telling you about the need for sourcing, not on heraldic grounds, but in order not to violate Wikipedia's policies. I consider this discussion with you to be closed, and will not participate in it any further.  Other editors can, of course, decide for themselves if they wish to continue trying to get you to understand, but I will not do so any more.  The consensus here is crystal clear: your original image is not appropriate because of original elements not supported by a reliable source, and should not be restored to the article.  I will therefore more on to discuss another matter with any editors who care to participate. I'm sorry that it has come to this, but your behavior is terribly frustrating, and not conducive to a collegial discussion any longer, at least as far as I am concerned. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have only attmepted to use the original research policy, which does not work here. That applies mostly to text, not images, and you have attempted to apply the textual limitations to visual media. The limitations for images requires that there be new theories included in images, which there is not, as I have provided historic examples and quotes, books to read, as reference. Now, you contend that artistic license and composition is still in in violation of the original research rule, however you have not shown where the original research policy states that. You have been trying to say what you think the policy should say, however, that is hardly a strict reading of the policy and you are modeling it to meet your ends. You have not gone to Captain James Cook and made issue with the historical example of arms there that include embellishments not part of the blazon (which were made by an artist after the Captain's death, just as this example was made after Roosevelt's death). I would be able to take you more seriously if your actions were the same across the board, however, you seem to only be bothered with this image for some unknown reason. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the above paragraph is false. —Tamfang (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't get the point about Duke of Norfolk. Each of the shields shown there is/was borne by at least one holder of that title.  In what sense are they incomplete?  —Tamfang (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is missing the three crests usually shown n his arms, his lion and horse supporters and the crossed batons. They only show a portion of his coat of arms, the shield. It also shows that new renditions of arms are used quite often on Wikipedia (you can go to almost any royal or noble article and find a new image created by a Wikipedia illustrator), and labeled as the "arms of so and so" without the need to specify it a new rendition. It is a ridiculous argument to say that new versions can not be used, because that would mean that likely more than 90% of the heraldic images on Wikipedia would need to be removed simply for being modern drawings and not historical. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean they are not complete achievements. As coats they are complete, so far as I know.  As for the rest of the paragraph, I didn't ask you to flog the dead horse. —Tamfang (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A coat of arms is a colloquial term for an achievement, they are the same thing. A coat of arms or achievement is made of an escutcheon (colloquially and simply called a shield), a helm, a torse and crest. In a more technical sense, a coat of arms refers to the tabard worn by a knight. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  20:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'tabard' sense is of course the original; the design painted on the shield is called a "coat of arms" because it was what was on the tabard, and that was never a full achievement. The components of a quartered shield are also often called coats. —Tamfang (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of previous discussion

 * (This discussion originally occured in the section below, but is not pertinent to that subject)


 * That is a bit biased, isn't it. How about you mention you don't know the copyright status of the black and white image, and that the embellishments, while not used by Roosevelt, are well within heraldic tradition and custom. That the consensus of facts and those quite familiar with heraldry are on my side, but the gut feeling of editors unfamiliar with heraldry is against this tradition without any sources or references to back up their feelings. And yes, artistic license is well within the policy of Wikipedia (how can you draw something without artistic license?), t is untested ideas that are forbidden. With at least 230 years of history proving my composition is well in the boundaries of heraldry, this is hardly untested. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well um no, You have just admitted yourself that the embellishments were not used by Roosevelt. Ergo, adding them is original research, and displaying them to our readers quite clearly misleads them as to what Roosevelt's arms looked like. Thank goodness this can be over now. → ROUX   ₪  00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the arms displayed on Wikipedia are new versions, not historical renditions commissioned by the people they represent, so I do not know why you bother with this issue. Look at Queen Victoria, Duke of Norfolk, King of Greece, King of Denmark, King of France, Pope Leo X and so on and so on. All are new images. There is nothing preventing new images, because there is no requirement in heraldry that a coat of arms can not be recreated. It is actually quite common. So arguing against it is a pointless exercise, less you want to start a campaign against almost every heraldic related article, you will have to accept new renditions of arms. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  06:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * New renditions, sure. New renditions with extra random stuff added? No. Pretend, for a moment, you are a reader with almost no knowledge of heraldry. You see an image here--your image, with the embellishments you have added with no sources to support them--and you as a reader are going to think that is what the arms looked like. When, in fact, it's not. Can you please cite a single policy here which suggests we can mislead readers that way? Of course you can't. Such a policy would allow for the upload of any image at all to any article. I could upload a photo of my apartment building and say "the window casements are the same as roosevelt had" and be just as accurate according to you, or a version of the achievement covered in teddy bears and candy canes. That is obvious nonsense. And yet your COI-inspired crusade to include non-sourced material here is exactly that.→ ROUX   ₪  07:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let us say we are posting an image of a turtle, but that turtle is sitting in some grass. The captions says simply, "A turtle." How would the reader who does not know what a turtle is be able to tell if we are referring to the shelled animal or the green plant? You are arguing that readers are too stupid to realize the big thingy in the middle is the coat of arms and the small tiny shields are just background. I guess I have more faith in readers' intelligence than you. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  07:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except not. I would expect the average user to know the difference between a turtle and grass. I would not expect the average user to know the difference between an accurate coat of arms and a rendition with random stuff included by the 'artist.' →  ROUX   ₪  08:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the most likely context for a picture of a turtle is an article about turtles, whose first sentence would say that they are reptiles (which are not plants).
 * I have more faith in the naïve reader's ability to recognize the inessential quality of less-heraldic ornaments such as a wreath or compartment (with or without bunnies), or the style of the mantling, than in their ability to recognize that some of the clearly heraldic elements are inessential, particularly when the composition as a whole is captioned "Arms of Theodore Roosevelt".
 * For precedent (which he misspells "precedence"), Liptak pointed to various bookplates. Two of them show banners behind the shield, but the banners are blank; that of James Cook does not show emblems of the Royal Society or the Royal Navy.  At least three have small shields or badges (of colleges in one case, ships in another; what are the small shields in R.D.Watt's bookplate?); but none of those has a caption identifying the composition as "the arms of N.N."  (It's past my bedtime, so I won't search Fox-Davies The Art of Heraldry for examples, but on opening it at random I find bookplates captioned as "bookplate" rather than as "arms".)
 * I don't expect Liptak to agree. He is an Artist and therefore entitled to treat all criticism with contempt. —Tamfang (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I gave examples, and you ignore them because they don't say "coat of arms" on them? What do you think they are? They show a composition comparable to the one I had made, and you are grasping for any reason to exclude them. Those images are the coat of arms of the person whose name appears on the bottom. DO you think the name is there because it is supposed to be a drawing of that person? DO you think that the small arms around the borders are part of him? Or his arms? No. It shows clear proof that such a composition is normal and acceptable. They were done by the Niagara Herald of the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the official Canadian Government office that regulates heraldry. You are in pno position to argue that an official herald is wrong because you're gut feeling is to go against it. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No one but you is impressed by your dismissing every argument as irrational.
 * I'll paraphrase my point, though I don't know why I bother. The function of a bookplate is primarily to say "This book belongs to N.N.," and secondarily to express something about the owner's personality.  The sole function of an illustration of Roosevelt's arms in this article is to say "Theodore Roosevelt's achievement of arms has these elements."  The associated shields do not detract from the bookplate function and they do detract from the exemplification function.  I would say so even if you showed an official exemplification (rather than an unofficial heraldic display, for a different purpose, that happens to be executed by an officer of arms) incorporating shields to which the bearer has no right; my position would be weaker then, but we as collective editors have every right to say "This is poorly suited to our purpose, no matter how official it is"; I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy to the effect that the state is infallible. —Tamfang (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I dismiss everyone's argument because they have apparently not read or reviewed the sources. This was the first example I gave, see here, it was painted by Anthony Wood, who is semi-retired now, but was a court painter for the British Crown from the mid to the present. The arms of the earl are embellished with smaller shields and crowns, and this is not a bookplate. If you are familiar with Anthony Wood, you would know he was quite fond of this style, though much of his work is not found online for easy access, but he has illustrated a few heraldry books that, if you pick them up, you may see even more examples. If anything, my image is actually much more reserved than these examples. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  17:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a lovely picture, thanks for sharing it. Did you notice that all of the corner shields show coats that are also marshalled in the main shield? —Tamfang (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. So? Some are the earl's and some are the wife's. You wanted proof of a non-bookplate heraldic painting surrounded by smaller shields. That is what you got. And I directed you to pick up a Book illustrated by Anthony Wood to see more, decorated by both marshaled arms and corporate arms. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I explicitly asked for an official document, purporting to represent "the arms of &laquo;someone&raquo;", so ornamented; it did not occur to me to specify smaller shields which (as in all the other examples we've debated) the person in question had no right to bear as part of his own arms. What was the purpose of this painting by Wood? — But this is all moot. I never questioned your right to paint such a thing. —Tamfang (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On faith in the reader: The appendices to The Lord of the Rings include a chart of the cirth (runes, seen on Balin's tomb and on the title pages). Groups of related characters are marked off by pairs of dots.  A few pairs of variant forms are shown side-by-side.  I've seen more than one fan-made font in which the separator dots are incorporated into the adjacent character and each variant pair is a single glyph. —Tamfang (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Choosing between the two available images
Consensus is clear that the original image made by Xanderliptak is not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, so a decision needs to be made between the two images that are available to be used. The images can be seen here. They are:


 * 1. A black and white PD image of Theodore Roosevelt's bookplate with his coat of arms on it; and
 * 2. Xanderliptak's image with the unreferenced embellishments removed

Clearly, both images have advantages. The second is in color, which is good - but since we have the words of the blazon in the emblem box, I don't think it would be entirely a loss to use the b&w image in that respect. The primary advantage to the first is that it's an actual historical example of the coat of arms as used by Roosevelt in his lifetime, whereas the other image, although heraldically "true" (according to what I've been told), is not one that has any real connection to Roosevelt.

Since we're in the business of presenting facts, and not in the business of being a gallery for anyone's artistic interpretation of facts, my strong inclination is to say that the bookplate should be used -- in fact, I've been on the verge of making the change several time, but each time I did not, so as not to aggravate the situation in this discussion.

Now that the original image is off limits, I think we need to have this discussion and come to some consensus: which of these two images is best to use? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * {discussion not relevant to this specific subject occured here, has been moved to its own section above this)


 * I would prefer the colour version to be given precedence, minus unsourced embellishments, as it allows readers to see what the arms look like without having to research tinctures and furs. The bookplate version is an excellent encyclopedic addition, establishing in situ use of the arms. → ROUX   ₪  00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting using the color image in the emblem infobox, and the bookplate elsewhere, perhaps nearby? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the emblem infobox had the capability of multiple images, but since it does I've added the bookplate to it. See what you think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Roux asked me to comment. The bookplate's rose bush is livelier and its leaves look more like rose leaves; but because of color I marginally prefer XL's version, which also has a much cleaner helm and mantling.  But don't call it contemporary: those who would apply that adjective to the bookplate, which is of the same time as the article's subject, are not all dead yet. —Tamfang (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A note to those reading this discussion: the copyright status of the bookplate image is being disputed by Xanderliptak on Commons. Those interested cam comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me just get something clear... he was the one accusing us of throwing anything we could at this problem in the hopes that something would stick, right? → ROUX   ₪  18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that he originally tagged the image for speedy deletion, which, of course, is only for uncontroversial deletions. Because I disputed it, I removed the SD tag and opened a normal deletion discussion, but Xanderliptak has re-added the SD tag twice since then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You both are aware that you need to provide publication and author information with a photo. Instead of complaining the rules are being followed too strictly (though earlier you both were complaining the rules needed to be applied even more strictly than original research specified), you simply find the publication and author information. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I'm complaining about is your quixotic quest to get your version of the image included at all costs, quite against policy and against consensus. → ROUX   ₪  19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't have consensus. You have provided no proof or references. I have the consensus of facts, you have consensus of ignorance. Please see What is consensus?. Also, the edited image is still my image. So you are accusing me of trying to remove my image to get my image in? Odd. Oh, also, these are only temporary images to be replaced at a later time. So my protest isn't over trying to get this or that image in, since I will be removing it later, anyways. It is about the way you are going about this; misquoting policies, applying policies in a flawed fashion, refusing to provide evidence, ignoring the evidence provided to you and so forth. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the only person arguing that the embellished version should be in the article. Everyone else here says it shouldn't. In what way is that not consensus? Get over it. None of us has misquote anything. Your inability to understand what WP:OR means (despite being told by several people, including an admin) is not our problem. I have also warned you on your talkpage for violating 3RR. → ROUX   ₪  19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not true, User:Seven Letters has weighed in to support me. You have three against, based on feelings, and two for based on sourced information. References win out over gut feelings. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, since this is now at AN/I and editors may be coming by to skim the conversation, I need to correct your statement so they don't get the wrong impression, because what you have said is factually incorrect.
 * The following editor raised questions about the original image: ViennaUK
 * The folliwng editors have said that your original image should not be used in the article: Beyond My Ken, Roux, DrKiernan, Tamfang, Drmies, Calton, Dmcq, Steveozone (8)
 * The following editor expressed the opinion that the altered version might be an appropriate compromise: Gimmetoo
 * The following editor expressed the opinion that if your original image was the only free image available, it should be used with an explanation: Seven Letters
 * The following editor expressed the opinion that the original image should be used: Xanderliptak
 * That is, I believe, an accurate summary of the discussion. I'd be happy to have any uninvolved editor check over my synopsis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case perhaps you could provide a reference showing that Roosevelt used these embellishments. → ROUX   ₪  20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the optimal solution here would be to use XL's version, but without the three shields, because enough editors are objecting that it's likely readers will also find those three shields misleading. It would be nice if XL would agree to the modification of his work, no matter how correct he may be. There may be dynamics or rules on Wiki that may make something unusable on Wiki even though it is perfectly acceptable within the practice of heraldry. XL: would you agree to that modification, even if just to achieve peace, and even though heraldry doesn't require that modification? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ending this discussion
Would anyone other than Xanderliptak (we know your opinions already) object to this discussion being ended? Would anyone other than Xanderliptak disagree that the clear consensus is to not include the version with embellishments? → ROUX   ₪  20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection from me, we're going around in circles well after consensus has been established. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the discussion should be closed and that the consensus is to exclude the version with embellishments. DrKiernan (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not how it works, a discussion is to run its course and allow time for interested parties to enter in. Again, please review what consensus means and how Wikipedia requires verifiability. You have tried to vote without sources, that is in exact contradiction to policy. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would object as well; there may be an immense amount written already on this topic, but it has only been going on for two days. Probably a little too early for a SNOW close. Give I at least one more day...there are likely interested parties who have not contributed.  And for the record, I'm against a display of any heraldry whatsoever in this article, if for no other reason than all this huff that's created when we discuss it.   Pur ple  back pack 89    22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has gotten quite long, and there is even more at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents listed under "Theodore Roosevelt" that was much calmer and answered many of the issues and goes over the sources again, without so much interuprion. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  23:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except for a source proving that Roosevelt ever used these embellishments on his arms. Provide one please. → ROUX   ₪  23:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You're request is ridiculous. No one is claiming Roosevelt used the external elements, they are not part of his coat of arms, they are added decoration which does not need to be sourced. The practice of such adornment is not without precedent. I provided evidence that the style is both written of and practiced.

Now, if you wish to claim that this is somehow not in heraldic practice and the sources I provided are flawed. please provide your source. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * XL, there may be dynamics or rules on Wiki that may make something unusable on Wiki even though it is perfectly acceptable within the practice of heraldry. Would you agree to the modification of your work (omitting the three shields) for the Wiki, even if just to achieve peace, and even though heraldry doesn't require that modification? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But ROUX and others wish to argue it is against heraldic custom, without evidence and in the face of many references and sources that state otherwise. Both images are mine, the original and the replacement, so this is not a personal matter, which ROUX seems to think it is based on his tone and language. It would have been completely different were they to ask if the additions could be removed for clarification. However, they wishes to argue a fallacy. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try to ignore what everyone else is saying for a moment. Would you agree to omit the three shields for Wiki use, regardless of heraldry custom? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That I have no issue with. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whew. —Tamfang (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whew? No one ever asked about cropping the image, but if it was customary to include external elements in heraldic work. And those that know nothing and little of heraldry decided to take it upon themselves to dictate what heraldic custom was, without knowing what the custom was. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you provided some ambiguous evidence that the style was practiced, not that it is currently practiced. And you keep ignoring, I'm not sure why, that bookplates are not heraldic art; they are artworks which sometimes use heraldic elements. It's also intriguing that you haven't argued with Tamfang, who has said the same things I have; perhaps you know you can't get away with it there, as s/he is easily as expert in the field as you are? In any case, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." Your images do in fact introduce unpublished ideas; the embellishments imply that Roosevelt used them. Which he did not. You are the only one arguing for the inclusion of these embellishments. Several editors have pointed out how confusing they are. Consensus is perfectly clear, is backed by policy, and yet you are still harping on and on and on and on about this. Give it up. → ROUX   ₪  02:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the sources at the ANI, and please read up on the Niagara Herald, which you will find is a modern herald. You can not exclude heraldic bookplates, they are heraldic art. Any art that includes heraldry is heraldic art. These are not random bookplates, either, mind you, but those created by the Niagara Herald. A herald is a government officer charged with maintaining heraldic custom and quality. All of your disputes with the image are based on falsities or misunderstandings. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  02:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am rather more familiar with Canadian heralds than you appear to think, so your condescension and patronizing attitude can stop about five minutes ago. There is no such thing as an 'heraldic bookplate.' There are bookplates, some of which include heraldic art. What part of 'consensus is clear' don't you comprehend? What part of 'it confuses readers' isn't getting through your head? What part of original research do you fail to grasp? I give up. You can continue your mindless stupid disruption as much as you like, but know this: the image with the embellishments is never going to be included in the article. The sooner you get used to that simple fact, the happier everyone will be. → ROUX   ₪  02:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I disavow, if that's the right word, the description of me as "easily as expert". I'm a layman who happens to have read some books, and been a book-herald in the Society for Creative Anachronism. Liptak appears to have, as I would expect of someone marketing himself as an heraldic artist, at least some acquaintance with Real Heralds and primary materials. — Of course, part of the issue here is what someone much less expert would infer from the image! —Tamfang (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So when I provided the work of the Niagara Herald, created in 1999, you knew that his work was surely modern, then you were purposely making a baseless claim when you said "not that it is currently practiced"? And what proof do you have that it confuses readers? Has a reader come to you? None has come to me. Or is this some made-up statement to benefit your argument? Since you have the other coat of arms image included, I find it hard to believe readers will be confused. And try putting "heraldic bookplate" into Google and and Google Images and see what comes up, I believe you will be surely surprised to find many writers and people use that term. You also have provided no reason why a herald's work should be dismissed, other than it doesn't agree with you. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  02:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not object the the discussion being closed. The bookplate seems to be the ideal solution as it was actually used by TR. -- ۩ M ask  03:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the bookplate. The coloured version is confused and badly done. shows the arms done without extra silliness and the motto nice and readable. I would not object to a slight embellishment and a different shape besides a shield but the whole argument above is over the top. Dmcq (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the motto part of the blazon?
To those knowledgable about heraldry: A coat of arms, I am told, is a visual rendering from the "recipe" of the blazon. My question is: Is the motto part of the blazon? I ask, because the newest version Xanderliptak has inserted in the article (and in Roosevelt family and Roosevelt (surname)) does not have the motto, as the alteration I had made did, and as the book plate does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No. And if you look at the American Heraldry Society, you will See Franklin Roosevelt's bookplate lacks the motto. The shields cover part of the motto scroll, so it just looks better to cut it all out. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  21:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your answer, and certainly understand your desire, from an artistic point of view to remove the motto entirely, but I hope you understand why I prefer to wait for a response from someone with no vested interest in the outcome. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If a motto is awarded as part of one's arms, yes it is included in the blazon. The blazon provided here (which, one notes, is the reference used for the arms in the article!) includes the motto, therefore the motto should be included. Indeed, contrary to what Xanderliptak is saying the bookplate quite clearly does have the motto. → ROUX   ₪  21:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, no. Look at the source where you will see Franklin Roosevelt's bookplate made without a motto. Motto's are not part of a blazon, a blazon is a description of a coat of arms, and a motto is not part of the coat of arms, but are external embellishments often added. And the arms were not awarded, where did you get that notion? Read the source, okay? And maybe this would make more sense to you. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. My first sentence above was a general comment on arms being awarded; or are you going to claim now that mottoes are never included as part of an award of arms? I'm pretty certain you would be one hundred percent wrong there. Perhaps the blazon as written by the Canadian Heraldic Authority for the former Governor General's arms will be a good enough example for you. At no point did I state that the Roosevelt arms were awarded; I was answering a general question with a general answer. Once again, your condescension and patronizing attitude are way out of place. Moving on to the bookplates... It is quite true that FDR's bookplate does not include the motto. Since we are speaking here of Theodore Roosevelt, and the blazon for Theodore Roosevelt (and his bookplate) both include the motto, the motto should therefore be displayed on this page. → ROUX   ₪  22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're problem is you lack the ability to infer information which is unfortunate, because it is quite a useful tool. See, if I have a source that says 1+1=2, then another source that says 2+2=4, I can easily infer that 1+1+1+1=4. You, however, would be the type to look at those two sources and ask how did I come to that conclusion when the sources have nothing to say about 1+1+1+1. How about you actually read the article on the Roosevelt arms and then you might understand a bit more about heraldic customs. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, let's keep the discussion civil. I note that at the top of the page referenced by Xanderliptak (which is here), under the headings "The Arms of Theodore Roosevelt" and "The Arms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt", are two images, which I assume are the coats of arms of these two people, and each of them includes the motto.  From the previous discussion I have understood that for book plates, not being arms, the designer has more freedom to add or subtract things, so I don't see the lack of a motto on FDR's bookplate as being particularly persuasive evidence. The question for me remains: is the motto part of the blazon -- since it seems to be specified in what I have been told is the blazon:"Arms: Argent upon a grassy mound a rose bush proper bearing three roses Gules barbed and seeded proper. Crest:From a wreath Argent and Gules three ostrich plumes each per pale Gules and Argent. Motto: Qui plantavit curabit (He who planted will preserve)"and therefore should it be included in the visual representation of the coat of arms? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am no longer taking part in this discussion. I have presented facts and references, I suggest that other users find consensus. → ROUX   ₪  22:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It varies. For example in Scotland a motto is part of the grant and in England it isn't. (Like supporters, the motto was a late addition to the heraldic repertoire; see Royal Supporters of England for examples of how both features varied until ~17c.)  I gather that there was no regulatory authority in Rosenvelt's homeland, and the arms were borne by assumption and usage rather than by grant; so any motto or none would be up to the whim of the bearer.  If a motto is consistently used, then a full description of the achievement will list it, like any other element consistently used.  Liptak's point seems to be that the absence of a motto in FDR's bookplate demonstrates that it is not a mandatory element.  Of course there are no mandatory elements; one might at will omit the crest or even the shield.  (Before someone jumps on me about cadency marks and such: One is less free in omitting parts of one of these elements.) —Tamfang (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems Tamfang agrees that mottoes may be excluded in emblazons. Will his opinion suffice? Not that you provided any sources, just a link to an image to a coat of arms that happened to have a motto, but nothing stating that a motto was mandatory. It is nice to know that even a compromise is a point of contention with you. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  22:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Your examples are evidence, and other people's examples aren't? —Tamfang (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ROUX has claimed such examples are disqualified. I am only holding him to his own standard. Either they are in or out, they can't be out for me, but in for him. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  23:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @Tamfang: So, putting aside for the moment that there is no regulating authority, which gives the heraldic artist leeway in the creation of the visual representation of the blazon, would you say that the most accurate representation of a coat of arms when a motto is known, would be one with the motto, or one without the motto? Or, is there no basis for preferring one over the other? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * With or without motto is equally accurate. With motto would be more complete, but that's not always better; for example, I wouldn't show a scroll where it would be too small for easy reading. —Tamfang (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, "complete" is indeed a better word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 For the love of all that is right and sensible, What does this have to do with Theodore Roosevelt? If he was here, would he have anything to say about "his" heraldry or coat of arms? More importantly, what source indicates that he would in fact care, or have anything to say? How does a coat of arms tell us anything more about him than his astrological chart? Or a carefully constructed numerological analysis of his birthdate and life? Or a meticulously-researched geneaology chart, created from scratch by one of our capable editors? Nothing. Without more, these things don't belong here and they tell us here at WP absolutely NOTHING. Not because any of these hypothetically perfectly-created things are "wrong" or unprofessional; rather, because they are not Encyclopedic. That means that they are not reliably sourced to be relevant to the subject, based on what the world has said, rather than what each of us (even us experts) might say. Further, if Teddy didn't give a hoot about heraldry, then why would we paste something on his biography? If he did care, then why would we paste something that he never saw? What exactly does that do to tell anyone about who he was?

This entire discussion really belongs on some other talkpage somewhere that is relevant to coats of arms and heraldry, and neither coats of arms or heraldry should be put on an article about someone unless there is some reliably-sourced reason to believe that the someone actually gave a crap about coats of arms and heraldry. That's sort of an American way of looking at things, but I think TR would likely approve. Steveozone (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * True, it has little to do with TR, but a lot to do with our being an encyclopedia. We have an article with an image in it that purports to be "the coat of arms of Theodore Roosevelt", and it would be good to know that what we have is the most accurate rendering of that -- and we have good evidence that Roosevelt used the coat of arms. If folks who are knowledgeable about heraldry would just come to some consensus on this last issue (motto or no motto) this whole sorry incident can be closed down and (hopefully) forgotten never to be raised again.  I'd be happiest just using the book plate, but there are good arguments for using both, and that's fine, but which version?  I would think the motto, since it's in the blazon, should be on the arms, but if I unilaterally decide to do that, heraldic people will come down on me like a ton of bricks.  I'm trying to get them to tell us what is best, but it just doesn't seem to be happening. besides, don't you know that in academia people get down and dirty about trivial stuff like this all the time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Down and dirty?" You just didn't like me calling him "Teddy." ;) Where is the evidence that he understood/used/cared about any "coat of arms" -- other than the fact that this bookplate appears in some of his books?  If we have information that he used a particular bookplate (of which we have a perfectly good image), then doesn't that answer the entire question?  Why jump to assume that he gave a crap for coats of arms, or that he should have preferred another version of the bookplate, if only someone more skilled (in his day and age or perhaps much later, like, perhaps now) would have created a better version true to the heraldic tradition and with better aesthetics? I'll let it go, if I must, but this entire question of heraldry is really going beyond anything for which we have reliable sources. Steveozone (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, sorry, I haven't seen the wedding dress or the memorial stone we've read about; does anyone have a picture? Steveozone (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The memorial stone is pictured here: http://www.findagrave.com/photos/2007/22/5998_116960630814.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like another significant data point for the use of the motto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The escutcheon is the foundation of an achievement of arms. That is the minimum that must be present (without it, there is nothing). There is a reason why we have the term "full achievement" when it comes to arms: you simply do not have to include every little bit and piece. Look at any of our articles on British royals. The vast majority of them show escutcheons only. I think there are a number of people in this discussion who are not familiar with heraldry at all. Seven Letters 18:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've said a number of times that I know little about heraldry, but I've also said a number of times that this discussion is not about heraldic practices only, but also about Wikipedia policies and our obligation to present the best information possible to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The shield is the core, yes, but sometimes a crest is displayed alone. Shall I list examples that come to mind? —Tamfang (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Close?
I am basically sympathetic to Steveozone's complaint above, so in the hope of putting this to rest, I did some research. From the American Heraldry Society's "Guidelines for Heraldic Practice in the United States Recommended by the American Heraldry Society (Approved by the Board of Directors of the American Heraldry Society, March 15, 2007)": 2.1.5. Mottoes 2.1.5.0. Except in countries where a motto is explicitly specified as part of an armorial grant, mottoes and slogans are not an intrinsic part of the arms. A motto or slogan may be shown or omitted, displayed below the shield, above the crest, or elsewhere, and may be changed by the armiger at will without affecting the essential nature of the arms. This would seem to confirm Xanderliptak's right to omit the motto. If the situation was one where we didn't have an historical example of Roosevelt's arms in use (the book plate) with the motto on it, I think a strong argument could be made that the motto should be included in the coat of arms we present to our readers (just as the artist has a choice of whether to include the motto or not, Wikipedia editors have a choice of whether to include an image or not), but since we do have the bookplate, and it's in the article, that argument is moot. I believe this discussion should be closed, with the article left in the current state it's in, with the emblem box containing both Xanderliptak's rendering minus both the motto and the embellishments, and the historical example of the bookplate. (Of course, if Xanderliptak's is successful, the issue of whether the sole remaining image should contain the motto or not would need to be re-opened.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Election 1912
Roosevelt had 88 electoral votes to Taft's 8 electoral votes. (This meant that Taft became the only incumbent President in history to come in third place in an attempt to be re-elected.)

Did John Adams not recieve fewer votes than both Jefferson and Burr in the election of 1800? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.247.192 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

African Safari - new external link
I would propose a link to this page at the Smithsonian on the expedition: http://www.mnh.si.edu/onehundredyears/expeditions/SI-Roosevelt_Expedition.html Cestertonio (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Souwestet, 16 December 2010
edit semi-protected Please add to External Links: Youngs Memorial Cemetery, www.trgravesite.org

Souwestet (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I linked to Youngs Memorial Cemetery, which has that external link, in both this article and Oyster Bay (hamlet), New York.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Souwestet, 17 December 2010
edit semi-protected Please consider an external link to Youngs Memorial Cemetery, where TR is buried. www.trgravesite.org

Souwestet (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You asked the same thing yesterday and JeffG said he did it.  GB  fan  05:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading
I'm a great admirer of Roosevelt, so I hope this doesn't seem an insult to his character, but can we really justify the claim that he read not just one book a day, which is in itself remarkable, but multiple books? Citation or no, the reader must be incredulous at this claim, especially when taken with the other statements that are made about Roosevelt's regular activities. How can he possibly have had the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.194.180 (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * amazing? well, yes. the RS are unanimous that TR was a super-speed reader who remembered it all. Rjensen (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GA?
Its a good article. I wondered if its good enough for GA? Spongie555 (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Assassination attempt
Should the section under the "Election of 1912" called 'Assassination attempt' really be that large of a section on the main article of Theodore Roosevelt, or should it be linked off? Dtucke2 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your right,it does seem a bit long. What do you suppose to do?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Its length is proportionate to the article. The article as a whole is too long, but that's a separate subject, which I'm about to raise. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Just Tone Deaf to Music
Some historians have faulted TR's foreign policy vis a vis Asia as nothing short of disasterous. From his administration's governance of the Phillipines which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos to his secret treaty with Japan (Taft Katsura) which condemned Korea to decades of brutal Japanese occupation to his backing of the Chinese Exclusionary Act, his ham- handed and racist approach to Asia is seen by some as a key reason for Japan's war declaration on the U.S. in 1941 (a mess his successor named Roosevelt ironically had to contend with) as well as the rise of such nationalists as Mao Tse Tung and Ho Chi Minh. Think it's time that people become aware how political events occur instead of being led to believe they happen out of the blue because the roles of presidents like TR are white washed. Much editing could be done on this article and I recommend anyone embarking on it to first read The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley.--72.145.81.177 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Richard Schuyler
 * bad history here. 1) The war in Philippines was over when TR took office; the deaths were caused by epidemics of disease that the US medical teams largely ended; 2) there was no secret treaty with Japan; 3) TR was not involved with the Chinese Exclusion Act; 4) TR was not ham-handed; he handled the Japanese better than anyone in the world; 5) Mao and Ho??? --maybe he gets credit for today';s Chinese economic boom? 6) Bradley is a popular writer who greatly exaggerates; he is not a scholar or a Reliable Source--[hnn.us/articles/121196.html as several historians have said] Rjensen (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I highly recommend reading the book. While it is true Bradley is a popular author, he still cites sources who are just as authoritative as unpopular ones. 1) The Philippine War (or as most historians call it "Philippine Insurrection") was declared won in 1902, and again in 1904, and again in 1906. As so many other "wars" which were declared won by U.S. officials (mission accomplished?) it was not.  One, (just one) example illustrating the ongoing tragedy that befell that country until long after World War II is the Moro Crater Massacre in 1906 in which hundreds of men, woman and children were murdered by U.S. troops led by Leonard Wood, a good buddy of T.R.s from Kettle Hill (so one cannot say he didn't know). There were dozen's of other atrocities documented by the actual perpetrators and memorialized by no less a contemporary personage as Samuel Clemens (see Comments on The Moro Massacre, Mark Twain 1906).  2) While it is correct to say there was no Taft-Katsura treaty, there was a "private" conversation in 1905 between Howard Taft, T.R.s compliant and dedicated Secretary of War, and Katsura Tara, the PRIME MINISTER of Japan, in which the latter stated (not asked) that it was imperative that Japan colonize Korea. This is what subsequently occurred and no amount of dissembling by Taft, Katsura, T.R. and later apologists for T.R.s amateurish meddling in Asia can alter the fact that Japan invaded, occupied, and brutalized both Korea and Japan for the next forty years. 3) The aforementioned are entirely consistent with T.R.s racist view of the Chinese Exclusion Act as expressed in his statement "No greater calamity could now befall the United States than to have the Pacific slope fill up with a Mongolian population." made in 1882 at the age of 24-Thomas G. Dyer, Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1960). --Rsschuyler (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Rsschuyler

Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos? Around 16,000 Filipinos died. Even liberal estimates place the total number of deaths around 34,000. After 1902, the war, if it could be called that, evolved into more of a Muslim insurrection and "battles" were often a result of crackdowns on headhunters, pirates, and slave-holders. Leonard Wood was a nut, but, even though he and TR were "good budd[ies]" that does not indicate what TR exactly knew. Mark Twain's comments are primarily focused on the lopsided numbers--15 dead Americans and 900 dead Filipinos--and the way the press was handling the event.

Because the Russo-Japanese War was primarily fought over Korea and Northeastern China, it would make sense that Japan might state what they intended to do with Korea. England and Russia signed off on Japan taking Korea. To say that America's inaction is on par with either England or Russia, particularly when America was not really a player in the region, is dopey, at best. TR's actions, to end the Russo-Japanese War, earned him a Nobel Prize. With the Philippines nominally at war, TR did the best he could possibly do in the situation. He had Japan sign off on America's domination of the Philippines.

TR's statements make a case that he was a racist, at least early in his life. However, nothing said appears to support the position that TR mishandled Asia. Further, no facts have been cited to support a position that TR's racism (1) existed so late in life and/or (2) negatively influenced his handling of Asian issues.

With that said, the following paragraph needs to be rewritten and probably moved:

In his book The Imperial Cruise (2009), author James Bradley reveals that in 1905 Roosevelt encouraged the Japanese to begin their military expansion onto the Asian continent when the president agreed a secret treaty that allowed Japan to take Korea. Bradley asserts that with this secret and unconstitutional maneuver, Roosevelt inadvertently ignited the problem (Japanese expansionism in Asia) that Franklin Delano Roosevelt would later confront as World War II in Asia.[51] The New York Times published a complementary review, writing that "The Imperial Cruise is startling enough to reshape conventional wisdom about Roosevelt’s presidency."[52]

Right now, it reads like an ad for the book. (It even includes a review from the N.Y. Times!) It needs to be rewritten. Additionally, it appears to be factually inaccurate. There was no secret treaty with Japan. The questions as to the constitutionality of a secret treaty also appear to be unnecessary. Additionally, the statements made above should be considered. The paragraph is very awkward in the presidential section, which makes no mention of TR's Nobel Prize or his handling of the Russo-Japanese War. I propose adding a paragraph about his actions and, if necessary, adding a paragraph to the section covering his positions on immigration, minorities, and civil rights.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition to the In Popular Culture Section
Inspiration for the Progressive Party's beginnings may have come from Roosevelt's friend and supporter, U.S. Senator Thomas Kearns of Utah, who in October of 1906 broke off from the Republican Party and started the American Party in that state. This was a direct response to LDS Church leadership influence on the Senatorial elections between 1902 to 1905. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.201.141 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed Metzger's portrayal of Roosevelt in the film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button should be added to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt Religion
Theodore Roosevelt was a member of the Reformed Church in America as can be seen by this site:. I can provide these quotes: "President Theodore Roosevelt manifested his Christianity all during his public and private life, as illustrated in this statement, when he first came to Washington: "When I first came to Washington, I did not know there was any Dutch Reformed Church there, and went with my wife to the Episcopal Church. But, on becoming President, I learned that there was a little obscure, red brick building tucked away on the back of a lot, and I immediately selected that as my Church./ ...His family faith was the Dutch Reformed, but he found no church of that denomination at Cambridge, and drifted into a Mission School of the high church of Episcopalian faith. He did not stay there long.../ Roosevelt... did not observe the formalities of the High Church service as they thought he should. They asked if he had any objection to them. "None in the world, but I am Dutch Reformed." This did not help matters and in the end, Roosevelt left this field of labor and entered a Congregational Sunday School nearby, where he taught during the remainder of his college term." From Buddy Dano, Theodore Roosevelt and the Local Church (pp. 3-4). He was technically speaking not a Presbyterian but a Reformed, so I am correcting these references.Mistico (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 5 November 2011
It looks like false credentials have been used to substantiate misinformation. Please verify references 44 & 45 as regards "Soots" claim to have been second addressee on 1997 letter from Lazio, etc. This person claims to have retired at 20 years - three weeks after 9/11/01? Dubious for someone claiming to have been in such a prestigious and patriotic position.

174.30.10.171 (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The template you used is to request a specific change. If you think a poor reference is used, try posting on Reliable sources/Noticeboard C T J F 8 3  18:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservation [under the heading 'Legacy']
President Roosevelt often used his presidential power in support of a conservation-minded agenda. Using the Antiquities Act (which he signed into law in 1906), Roosevelt designated 150 national forests, 5 national parks, 18 national monuments (many of which would later become national parks), 51 federal bird reservations, and 4 game preserves, totaling approximately 230,000,000 acres, or just under 10% of the United States’ total land area. Roosevelt’s use of the Antiquities Act set precedent for his successors, who created another 64 national monuments between 1906 and 1943.

In 1907, on the eve of a new bill that would strip the President of his authority to create further forest reserves in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, Roosevelt designated 16,000,000 acres of new national forests. Creating these reserves, later known as “The Midnight Reserves,” was Roosevelt’s final use of his presidential authority to protect natural lands and solidified his legacy as “the conservationist president.”

Nick.G.Baker (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012
The Theodore Roosevelt wiki has been vandalized with profanity in the opening sentences. Please delete it.

24.107.109.77 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By "Theodore Roosevelt wiki", do you mean this article? Because there is no profanity in the opening sentences and, as of this posting, the page was last edited on March 6.--JayJasper (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * someone added lots of trivia in the lede about other people, so I cleaned it up. Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation issues.
It says that the diseases Roosevelt contracted in Africa "ruined his health." Are there any citations for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmlessCoin (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on his religion
This is a rather comprehensive article, yet nothing is included on his religious views, even though some consider him one of the most religiously observant. I do not know why, but would this or this be considered worthy sources? Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)