Talk:Eleanor Roosevelt/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Honorary Sorority Member

Eleanor Roosevelt was NOT the first honorary member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. I made the correction. Avid reader 03:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A quote

So, is it "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission" or "Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Age and Prize

It should be emphasized that the Human Rights Prize is less prestigious than is the Nobel Prize. Also, 78 years of age is not old at all and should be noted that many productive years were taken away from Eleanor Roosevelt when she passed away at 78 years old in 1962. 11:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why, and why? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Since when is 78 not old?? I have never heard of any prize the United Nations gives so I would have to agree with whoever it is who said the prize is less prestigious than the Nobel Prize. -Centers 21:09. 7 March 2006
  • Well, of course it is. Almost every prize is. Do we mention when someone won the Fields Medal that it is less prestigious than the Nobel Prize? Do we mention when someone wins a Pulitzer Prize that it is less prestigious than the Nobel Prize? Do we mention when someone wins the Turing Award that it is less prestigious than the Nobel Prize? What's the point? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• I completely agree with you. You are totally 100% correct on each of your statements. It's almost like stating "The sky is blue," something that everyone who can see knows. What I do believe though is that when a person gets older, they do not believe they are "old" and will be in a state of denial. The person making that edit may be elderly but I would feel it to be a blessing to live 78 years. --Centers 23:29, 8 March 2006

• While you're here, could you provide with a source for the Missy LeHand addition? It's pretty salacious sounding, certainly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is not a lot I can find on Ms. LeHand. Other than being FDR's secretary and the possible allegations of an affair, I don't see much significance in the article. Perhaps you should suggest merging it with FDR's article. -Centers 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are truly User:Centers, could you please log in when you edit? It gets confusing, especially when (as now) you are criticizing an edit made by someone who also signed a comment as User:Centers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Heading levels

I've promoted the "First Lady of the United States" and "Life after the White House" headings to first-level headings. Their sections don't really discuss the controversy over her sexuality, and I'm pretty sure the information in those two sections are more notable than the controversy (not to say that the controversy isn't notable, of course). – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please leave this page alone! 13:35 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Might be nice to know who the above editor is

More info on her relationship with her mother-in-law

Footnoted it and will add some pics of Sara Delano Roosevelt who was one tough woman. SimonATL 03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's start footnoting

Many of us have wanted to do this. I've added some using the latest wiki technology. Take a look at how its done. You don't even have to worry about numbering, wikipedia does it for you. Won't this help to make this article more objective?SimonATL 03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove section on Alice Roosevelt again

Rjensen, per your comments, I have already cut the section on Alice in half. I did not originate that section. When you removed the original edit you said that the article was about Eleanor not Alice. OK, I felt that was reasonable so I tried to accomodate this by cutting the section roughly in half. A discussion of Eleanor's relationship with her cousin is not "useless" as you charactarize it. Eleanor was plagued much of her early life with shyness and a lack of confidence. This trait seemed to abound in her cousin and she felt intimidated by it. That there was a rivalry between the two is undeniable and it colored Eleanor's relations with their Oyster Bay Republican cousins. This family rivalry also took form in Eleanor actively campaining against Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. when he ran for NY govenor. I will also be adding a discussion of that aspect of Eleanor's life and unlike any previous editor, I've begun footnoting this article and plan to work with interested people like you to get it to "featured article" status. Toward that end, I added the photos of Eleanor's father and photos of her in school and just after her engagement. Can't you help this process in a more positive way? Repeated section removals is not the way to go. Please discuss the section instead of arbitrarily removing it. SimonATL 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The section is teenage jealousy and petty gossip. It does not deserve any attention and now it gets as much as ER's great achievements for blacks and human rights. One sentence in the Trivia section is more than enough. In fact it played very little role in ER's career. Rjensen 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to you opinions, but please substantiate them. The Alice Eleanor aspect is no mere trivia. Well beyond her childhood years, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that ER was always intimidated by her cousin and this is not a minor issue. I'll provide the footnote to ER's son explaining Eleanor's tremendous sensitivity to Alice's comments and actions. The Alice issue was part of a larger issue which amounted to the rivalry and ill will between Oyster Bay and Hyde Park Roosevelts that sometimes colored the activities of each family. For example, Ted Roosevelt, following in his father's foot steps became Assistant secretary of the Navy and ran for NY governor. As directed by NY dem strategists, Eleanor actively campaigned against him attempting to link him to the Teapot Dome Scandal. He lost the gubernatorial race and the Oyster Bay Roosevelts felt that "their guy's" path had been unfairly blocked by ER. ER would later admit that this was not her proudest moment. Ted's mother, Edith Roosevelt actively campaigned against FDR. The Oyster Bay Roosevelt's felt that FDR borrowed much of TR's form minus the substance. They felt that he borrowed a lot from his cousin in a triumph of form over substance. As another example, like TR, FDR served as Asst SecNav, but, unlike TR, he felt no compulsion to serve in the following WW-I, regretting later that he had not served only because his absense from European battlefields might hurt his political prospects. All this goes well beyond childhood jealousy. Unlike the hard-shelled Alice Roosevelt, Eleanor had a much more sensitive nature and she ended up surrounding herself with people to run interference for her. All these things go beyond an superficial understanding of ER. She accomplished far far more than Alice ever dreamed of doing. Why? Because she was a nice lady, or a brave lady? No, it goes well beyond superficial analyses. How did a shy, retiring, girl, totally lacking in self confidence become the most remarkably effective first lady of the 20th Century? Let's get beyond the superficial details. Sorry, Rjensen, but Alice Roosevelt is part of any analysis of what transformed a shy young girl to the bold brave woman ER became? Any other comments from other editors? I hope we don't have to escalate such a simple thing to arbitration. Let ONE little paragraph stand. We don't want to get petty, ourselves, do we? SimonATL 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's trivial dispute between teenage girls. The other conflicts do not get mentioned in the article. Rjensen 21:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Point is, what might have started out, as something trivial escalated into the above. So its useful to explain one of the factors in origins of the rivalry between the families. I will expand on the other aspects where they apply. Eleanor actively following around Ted Roosevelt when he was running for NY Govenor with an actual TEAPOT mounted on a car to call attention to the allegations, demonstrated to be false that Ted was involved in the Teapot Dome Scandal was hardly the stuff of a teenage dispute. My whole point is to illustrate some of the origins of these bad feelings. They are not trivial and often overlooked. We shouldn't assume information that many readers simply won't know when they read about these people. I'm continually amazed to hear people casually discuss their take on the Roosevelts. A couple weeks ago a co-worker literally said, "So FDR was Theodore Roosevelt's son, right?" Let's let the other editors weigh in here. For the time being, can you be so kind as to leave the revised paragraph so we don't have to get into a discussion that there might be personal reasons for your your difference of opinion here. Thanks SimonATL 23:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If the political battles between the Dem and GOP wings of the family are important then mention them. It is ridiculous for Wiki to say that Eleanor supported her husband's politics because she was jealous of one cousin! Stop exaggerating the trivial rivalries. Rjensen 23:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed that, as you said, "Eleanor supported her husband's politics because she was jealous of one cousin." Where did I make that claim? That's patently absurd. She supported her husbands politics for her reasons. However, there IS a historical basis for the rivalry between the 2 branches of the Roosevelt family. We're not talking about teenage rivalries. We talking, for example, about Eleanor taking votes away from Ted Roosevelt's NY gubernatorial campaign by riding to his speeches in a car with a teapot on the hood to falsely link him to the Teepot Dome Scandal. He had planned to be NY governor and then go on to the Republican presidential nomination. Losing that nomination derailed the Oyster Bay Roosevelts from getting their guy into the White House. Alice Roosevelt did all in her power to diminish her cousin and yes, she had a lot of influence in DC. If Eleanor wasn't aware of this influence then why did she attend Alice's social functions? You'll see a photo of Eleanor standing in Alice's living room in the Alice Roosevelt Longworth article. And please don't delete that photo just because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions. Yes, there WERE personal as well as political reasons for all the Roosevelt's actions. People are people. When Ted lost NY gov, we see his mother speaking AGAINST cousin Franklin. Hey, People are people, and ER was not immune. No mere childhood rivalry here, but not just politics, either. Please don't put words into my mouth. Tell you what, I'll footnote that Alice section and the editors including you can discuss the pros and cons. Also, I'll add information on the Ted Roosevelt campaign and footnote that. Please don't just delete, because you disagree. Thanks. SimonATL 23:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Politics was important to all the Roosevelts and campaign acitivities deserve to be included. Just leave imaginary teenage hostilities out of the real story and keep it under "trivia". Alice, by the way, campaigned against her husband's GOP ticket in Ohio in 1912 (and he lost) -- that cost her dearly in terms of national credibility as a spouse--leaving her with the reputation for her nasty but clever put-downs of everybody, not just ER. Rjensen 23:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You somehow think that I'm an Alice fan. Actually, I don't think highly of her at all. Agree about her LACK of support for husband nick. But let's also remember that he was consistently unfaithful to her and their relationship was tottering even by 1912.

The Alice section is not some vapid discussion on "imaginary teenage hostilities." Also, I never claimed that, as you said, "Eleanor supported her husband's politics because she was jealous of one cousin." Where did I make that claim? That's patently absurd. She supported her husbands politics for her reasons. However, there IS a historical basis for the rivalry between the 2 branches of the Roosevelt family. We're not talking about teenage rivalries. We talking, for example, about Eleanor taking votes away from Ted Roosevelt's NY gubernatorial campaign by riding to his speeches in a car with a teapot on the hood to falsely link him to the Teepot Dome Scandal. He had planned to be NY governor and then go on to the Republican presidential nomination. Losing that nomination derailed the Oyster Bay Roosevelts from getting their guy into the White House. Alice Roosevelt did all in her power to diminish her cousin and yes, she had a lot of influence in DC. If Eleanor wasn't aware of this influence then why did she attend Alice's social functions? You'll see a photo of Eleanor standing in Alice's living room in the Alice Roosevelt Longworth article. And please don't delete that photo just because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions. Yes, there WERE personal as well as political reasons for all the Roosevelt's actions. People are people. When Ted lost NY gov, we see his mother speaking AGAINST cousin Franklin. Hey, People are people, and ER was not immune. No mere childhood rivalry here, but not just politics, either. Please don't put words into my mouth. Tell you what, I'll footnote that Alice section and the editors including you can discuss the pros and cons. Also, I'll add information on the Ted Roosevelt campaign and footnote that. Please don't just delete, because you disagree. Thanks.

Re Eleanor's great achievements. Hey, I'm much bigger ER fan than an ALR fan, so we're only talking one small paragraph. What might have started as teenage feelings steadily escallated. The Oyster Bay Roosevelts did not feel that FDR was in the same league as TR and they had their reasons for that belief. No imaginary teenage rivalry.

Why of course, ER did more for civil rights than any first lady of the 20th Century. But why should this article be a rehash of the usual "material. In the TR article, rather than the usual rehash, I added photos from his diary the day his wife and mother died. I added a picture of TR in the NY Assembly, to give it more than the usual content. Helped add footnotes to that article which won back its featured article status.

Why not work with all of us to make this article better. Look at the recent photos I added - of ER and her father, improved quality photo of ER as a student, ER and FDR when they first met and of ER and her mother-in-law. Let's expand the article with thought-out useful information. I've also added the first footnotes to this article. Let's all a lot more on Eleanor's civil right's achievements and also, conversely, how FDR ignored her requests to do something more on the racial front because he didn't want to offend the "Solid South." SimonATL 23:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture of Eleanor Roosevelt on Alice Longworth's article is not at Alice's house but in the Monroe Room at the White House. 07:45, 2 Jun 2006 (UTC)

thank

god someone finally fixed the contents, that only took forever and a day. hope the reverters don't revert that, they really seemed to like the contents that made no sense.

excuse me?

Even her cousin Alice Longworth came to Eleanor's rescue stating loudly in a fashionable restaurant one day, "I don't care what they say. I simply cannot believe that Eleanor Roosevelt is a lesbian."

"came to Eleanor's rescue"? I don't care what you believe, that's a rediculously biased way of putting that. and I don't have a degree, but do I need one to say that ones family is very rarely involved in ones sex life? the validity of this claim aside, I'm editing the wording of that to something less POV. --Feralnostalgia 16:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your change to this sentence is very interesting because it bascially says the same thing as before. A person's family is usually the first to know or have some idea of another members sex life. Centers 23:06, 21 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ted

If Uncle Ted cared so much about his niece then how come Eleanor had such a deprived, depressed childhood where she was alone much of the time, neglected a completely ignored...if he cared why didn't he do more to ensure she had a happier childhood? It appears that she was not much noticed by the Roosevelt's until after her return from school in England in 1902. Besides giving the bride away in 1905, what significance did Theodore play in Eleanor's life?11:35, 31 Aug 2006

Trivia

This one bothers me: "Was one of the first women not to change her legal name after marrying." One of the first famous women, or literally one of the first? And also, she really didn't have to change her name from Roosevelt to Roosevelt. Who knows if she would've change her name had it been different... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.67.186.84 (talk) .

In 1905, most women unless they were doctors changed their names on marrying. No ER did not have to change her legal name but at her marriage, Anna was dropped from her name and the pronounciation from the two "Roosevelts" was changed when Eleanor Roosevelt married.

Just some thoughts

A few questions:

• I see a lot of the text of the main article has references to "Eleanor" throughout. Most articles about people will reference their last name (ie, for Joe Smith, reference would say "Smith invented the dustball...."). Has the first-name reference been used to avoid confusion with FDR or her uncle?
• Also, does anyone have any issue with older posts to this talk page being archived? It's getting awfully long. NickBurns 19:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality

She clearly wasn't straight. The love letters are obvious, and for some people it isn't enough. It should be. If you look at Walt Whitman, he doesn't come out and say "Hey, I'm gay"..he just was because of his work. It's hard for me to get that out of his writings, and here we have Eleanor; clear as day. Just because she "didn't know what a homosexual was", doesn't mean she WASN'T bisexual or anything else. I'm sure Walt didn't know what it was either, but he was. I want to include in her in the category as LGBT something at least. Oreo

The letters continue to be the subject of much controversy and debate. The letters certainly indicate the possiblity of a homo/bisexual. Many scholars and historians have noted that much of the correspondence was edited throughout the years and has many inconsistencies even as far as Roosevelt's writing style is concerned. We must remember that forty-five years passed between the time of the start of the alleged relationship in 1933 and the time the letters became open to the public in 1978. Roosevelt knew what a homosexual was because she made as close to a direct reference to one particular lady in her autobiography without blatently saying "lesbian." There must be a standard beyond how a person writes to determine his/her sexual preferences so it is unfair to say "he just was because of his work." A person can be deemed a murder or a pedophile by how he writes. There are many people who write to portay themselves as one thing but turn out to be something else. Any person can be seen as a homo/bisexual by any other individual. Roosevelt could very well have been a lesbian but the lady has been dead over 4 decades and it is a fact we may never know the answer to. Focusing on her sexual orientation is a trivial issue when compared to her contributions to the world. She and the Lord will take care of the issue of her sexual tastes. Besides, you are late. There was previously a big debate on the structuring of that section of the article, what was agreed upon and those pages are now archived. No use in going through that again. The section is completely fine as is. Centers 4 November 2006, 12:45 (UTC)

Well, I still have the right to voice my opinion and concern no matter what the debate was. I think it's pure crap, and you know what?..it does have importance to the LGBT community. We need strong leaders, etc, just like the African-American unit. Walt Whitman is basically determined gay by his writings, even though he had a relationship with a woman, because it's just obvious. So, I think she belongs in at least a category of LGBT, because there's also LGBTQ..Q for Questioning, etc. Oreo

Everyone's opinion deserves consideration and that is exactly what the archived pages contain, perhaps you should review them. If the letters are indeed edited then people are falsely directed to believe she was a lesbian so there is no real importance to the LGBT community. An analogy that can be used: Coretta Scott King worked for equal rights for gays and lesbians but this does not mean she was lesbian. We could make the assumption but it would be very untrue and people are quick to believe the bad things they hear about others. CSK was plaged with rumors the last 38 years of her life at least, that her husband was unfaithful. To this day, only circumstantial evidence proves this claim. The issue of ER's sexuality should not be compared to the African-American unit. One could say it is "obvious" you are a bigot only because you have failed to analyze further evidence. I read the book containing ER's letters to Hickok and there were hardly any that would necessarily suggest a lesbian relationship. I believe people decide based solely on quantity rather than on the content of the letters which is fine. In the archive page, it was decided not to include ER in any of those categories until further conclusive evidence proves that she was indeed bisexual. 6 November 2006, 12:15 Centers (UTC)

Your opinion, and I'm not comparing her sexuality to the African-American unit. I said a strong leader like her would benefit the cause, but you "failed" to see that now didn't you? I'm a bigot, oh, okay. Definition: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. Did I say I think you're opinion is crap, or that I don't care what you think? Hmm..no. Everyone has their own opinion, and I could care less what it is as long as it isn't based on hate. Oreo

While it is true that maybe a strong leader such as Roosevelt can "benefit" the cause, we still do not know her presumed preferences to be factual. For people to highlight this aspect of her to promote the cause is not exactly the right thing to do. The only way this would be so is if she had came out as a lesbian during her lifetime which she did not do. So there is no reasonable support to use her as someone to "benefit" this cause. "I think it's pure crap, and you know what?..it does have importance to the LGBT community. We need strong leaders, etc, just like the African-American unit." This statement seems to imply as comparsion between the leaders of the LGBT community and African-American community. The homosexual effort does not have to be an effort because there are many people who are homo/bi/transgender that live quite fine without any problems. For short, these people are not consistently confronted with roadblocks such as discrimination and hate. Another way to look at this is that maybe she never came out if she was lesbo/bi is because in her time, this sort of scandal could have effectively put an end to her career. One could say that it is best NOT to come out in order to improve his/her career opportunities if they want to model themselves after ER as a leader. This is just a suggestion rather than to assume that the letters were from ER verbatim, unaltered, etc. 8 November 2006, 12:42 Centers (UTC)

Excuse me? We are constitnetly confronted with roadblocks, are you blind? I get harassed every single day for your information, and let's see...people are allowed to legally not let gays/bi's work for them, we can't get married in the US, what else..hm..I dunno - how about we have a bunch of hate groups against us maybe. I was saying that the African-American struggle had strong leadrs, and she would give us positive looks. It doesn't matter anymore. Oreo

African-Americans did not ask for these problems while being discriminated against. They simply were because their skin was different. The LGBT effort is different in that there are many people others don't know to be leading a different lifestyle, so unless others knew, it would not make much difference. I refuse to get in a debate about this LGBT issue, that is not what this article is about. I am certain there are forums on-line for those discussions. The African-American group had such strong leaders because they knew what they were fighting for was right. The case would have gone to hell in a handbasket had they pushed for a bunch of absurd and wrong causes. A role model like Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O'Donnell would be more appropriate. They are much more modern and refined and know who they are. Roosevelt probably would have been embarassed to admit if she was something other than straight so if there was indeed "cowardice" involved, this would disqualify her as a suitable role model. 14 November 2006, 12:22 Centers (UTC)

Equal Rights Amendment

Seems to that that Roosevelt's position on the Equal Rights Amendment changed over time; am I wrong? Anyway, I'm not sure that "but opposed the ERA" is the right language -- it implies her positions were contradictory, but was there otherwise no overlap between first wave feminism and the progressive/New Deal worries that newly gained workplace (and other) protections would be reduced? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

she always opposed ERA and was quite articulate about it. That has to be included. Rjensen 07:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have, however, found a couple of indirect sources claiming she dropped her opposition to the ERA in the last couple years of her life. Clearest is, Perhaps most startling, she dropped her four-decade opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that “law, custom, and the forgetfulness of men” kept women out of many jobs they sought, and telling the Lucy Stone League that she no longer believed the ERA would undermine the women’s safety at work since they could join unions and “there was no reason why you shouldn’t have [the ERA] if you want it.”[1] I wish I had the source for that quote -- the article doesn't provide it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

for many decades she was the #1 spokeswoman against ERA. If she did a 180 degree turn, i'm amazed so few people heard of it Rjensen 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too! But it doesn't mean it's not true -- the ERA wasn't getting a lot of press in 1960-1962 anyway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what her biographer says: from Lois Scharf in The Eleanor Roosevelt Encyclopedia 2001. pp 164-5: In 1951 "the president of the NWP wrote her for explicit support of the ERA. She responded in curt, noncommitted fashion. “While I am not going to fight the Equal Rights Amendment, I really do not feel enthusiastic enough about it to write you a letter in its favor” (Scharf, 246). For the remaining decade of her life, her ambivalence persisted.... Kennedy’s undersecretary of labor, Esther Peterson, who was a former union official and an adamant foe of the ERA, suggested the creation of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women to study these issues. Kennedy asked ER to chair the commission. ER died before the commission issued its final report. It was a massive study that, in summary, restated the decades-old stance that female equality was best achieved by recognition of gender differences and need. ER would undoubtedly have agreed with these findings, made public in 1963.... ER took firm, outspoken positions on numerous controversial issues involving race and class, which lent them credibility. A constitutional amendment addressing gender was not among them. It would be unfair, however, to overlook ER’s concern for difficulties and discrimination faced by American women because of her inaction on behalf of the ERA. Unlike egalitarian feminists, her concept of woman’s rights did not include the blanket amendment. One must look in other directions to discover her contributions to the advancement of American women." (quoting Scharf) Rjensen 16:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've dropped a note to Allida Black[2] who wrote that article I pointed to, asking for some clarification regarding the Lucy Stone League comment. I know it's not hugely important, but now I'm purely curious. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just got a nice note from Dr. Black: Am out of the office. There is NO DOUBT ER dropped opposition which is different than endorsing. Record ...paper trail is clear... Issue is how little people search her record svcuz it so voluminous. Will send souces late tonight or tomorrow morning. Thanks so much for your thoroughness. I am dedicated to documentation. We have major sources publsihed on this in ER Papers Vol 1...which ships (ironically) today. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)