Talk:Herbert Hoover/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

No living ex-presidents?

I removed the statement that Hoover being the President with no living ex-Presidents was "a distinction shared, since the tenure of George Washington, only by Richard Nixon (after the death of Lyndon B. Johnson)", because that is inaccurate. See Living Presidents of the United States. This also happened during John Adams' administration; during Ulysses Grant's second term; and during Teddy Roosevelt's second term. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not incorrect because Calvin Coolidge had died on January 5 1933, two months before Hoover left office and replaced by Coolidge's 1920 vice presidential opponent Franklin D. Roosevelt.122.108.156.100 (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there were no living ex-presidents for a couple of months at the end of Hoover's term after Coolidge died. What I disagree with is the idea that this (having no living ex-presidents) happened only to George Washington, Hoover, and Richard Nixon. It also happened to John Adams, Ulysses Grant, and Teddy Roosevelt. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Expand World War II subsection

There's almost nothing on him from '41 to '46 pbp 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath of 1927 floods

The article used to more explicitly state that as president Hoover broke the promises he had made to black leaders after the 1927 floods and before the election. This breaking of his promises was a very important first step in most black voters transitioning their electoral loyalty from the Republican party to the Democratic party, so the coy refusal to make any connections in the current state of the article doesn't serve the purpose of conveying appropriate information... AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

ideas on the lede

In my opinion there are two reasons for using the opening paragraph for a concise summary of the importance of Hoover. First many readers have only a couple of minutes to spare, as their main interest is another topic in which Hoover is mentioned. Tell them what they want to know. That certainly will not be at the surface to people who want to spend a half-hour reading the entire article. Second is a new development, at least for me. I got an Amazon echo for Christmas, and discover that if you ask it history question, it will give you the first paragraph or so of the Wikipedia article. And it says its from Wikipedia. This is a wonderful new non-reading audience will familiarize itself with not only facts, but the legitimate value of Wikipedia, and the editors here should take advantage of that wonderful opportunity. Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I've reverted back to the previous version because you should be following WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss) not WP:BRRD (bold, revert, revert again, discuss). Your version in the lede is in the article's page history for reference, but you can further elaborate on it here if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

And you should talk about the lede. The issue is of interest now that Amazon, Google and Apple are all giving non-web access to Wikipedia lede paragraphs. I think we should use this opportunity to grow Wiki's audience and especially increase its legitimacy. (Teachers still warn against using articles here). Rjensen (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The main difference between your version and the current version appears to be opening paragraph. Your version contains some WP:PUFFERY and MOS:OPED (for example, "became world famous", "energetic exponent", "lacked the political skills") that doesn't (at least in my opinion) seem appropriate for Wikipedia. It also goes into a little too much detail about progressivism and repeats content about the 1928 election and Hoover becoming increasingly more conservative which is covered in the last paragraph of the current version. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That is an interesting thing and cool thing to learn about the Echo. Anyway, I like to think of Wikipedia articles as something like a pyramid. The very first paragraph gives readers the essential information on a subject (and is generally going to be most useful for those who aren't familiar at all with the subject), the lead as a whole (including the first paragraph) summarizes the key points of the article, and the article provides a summary-style overview of the subject. I think that by keeping the first paragraph relatively short, we can efficiently introduce the subject of the article to new readers while highlighting the truly essential information. Orser67 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Trying to add a link to this article.

Hello, I'm trying to link an article about Hoover's last known written words before he died under the "Death" section, but it's not working and now the page is screwed up. If anyone can help me fix the links so that they're all intact and working properly, that would be great. Thanks.

FTR, in case the link to the article is needed, here it is:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/52420/harry-truman-and-herbert-hoover-unlikely-friendship — Preceding unsigned comment added by OccasionalEditor30 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

OccasionalEditor30 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I have fixed your problem. Let me know if this is what you wanted to happen.Chewings72 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, you fixed it. Thank you very much @Chewings72 !

OccasionalEditor30 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of anti Chinese sentiment

Good Day,

I am a descendant of former President of the United States Herbert Hoover. I am more than shocked to read that during his mining career. while working in China, the sentence "He became deeply interested in Chinese history, but quickly gave up on learning the language and viewed the Chinese people as racially inferior.[29]" as this is pure propaganda from a book published just 2 years ago without ever having had a source after more than 70 years naming him with anti-Chinese sentiment. On the contrary, he spoke Chinese himself and was ongoingly interested in China and the Chinese culture, he disliked what Communism did with the Chinese culture, how it transformed China, in his eye negatively. This is blank propaganda in the name of Herbert Hoover, my family has from his family lines ourselves Chinese ancestors. I assure you he admired Chinese philosophies, rationalism, logic and the Buddhist character for the high sense of ethics and moral. I would ask an Admin to remove this sentence as well as this passage and source, quoting a just recently published book. If we start allowing foreign terrorist s(I assume that the author received from a Herbert Hoover impersonator family structures, and these are all terrorists as they have the order and task to terrorize up to involvement in child abduction and murder of real US Presidential family members, the approval for this publishing. US Presidential families and other US individuals receive impersonator from hostile governments that subverted US institutions) structures to compromise the character of our clear ethical historical leaders by publishing books after 70 years to alter a person's ethical impression and we as US citizens start to receive brainwash by foreign powers.

Thank you kindly for the occupation of your time.

As knowledgeable as you are on the subject of President Hoover, we cannot just take your word for his opinion of the Chinese. Wikipedia has its own criteria for what is a reliable source (see WP:RS). As mistaken or biased as the cited author may be, as a published source Wikipedia rates it more highly than your testimony. It would settle things if you could point out a published source which more accurately shows his opinion of the Chinese, perhaps even a quote from Hoover's writings. Regards. Plazak (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I had this issue just recently, it is not about proving and providing evidence, it is about the ability to recognize already present evidence. These are not statements but open printed records: He spoke Chinese, he worked in China, his wife studied Chinese culture and language, they talked during his presidency in Chinese. There starts the ability to evaluate already present evidence information, if this is not given will the same people who are unable to recognize the already present evidence simply negate, reject and deny anything further presented evidence as such. Then logic itself, as part of the ability to recognize evidence, Would you marry someone who is fascinated by a culture who's race you think of as inferior? After these official records have my personal statements extra weight: he had himself Chinese ancestry (racial background evaluation by optical comparison), we have a Chinese zodiac family program as part of an official US government program, as well as another Chinese related US government program, we are involved in Chinese related diplomatic activities etc. I just finished my letter to the Chinese government in which I apologize for this sentence giving them official authorization as a family member to have this content removed. I would like to share this letter but then censored as this includes certain background information not suitable for Wikipedia. I ask you to remove this sentence as well as the reference.

The reference given is Whyte, Kenneth (2017) Hoover: An Extraordinary Life in Extraordinary Times Knopf ISBN 978-0307597960 pages 72 and 73. So the questions to be asked is (1) does the reference support the claim

He became deeply interested in Chinese history, but quickly gave up on learning the language and viewed the Chinese people as racially inferior.

Looking at what I can see in google books I think this sentence in the article is somewhat overstating what the book has: "Hoover shared the prevailing European conviction of Chinese racial inferiority" and that he initially shared with his wife their 2 hours per day on learning Chinese but "gave it up before long and never advanced beyond rudimentary communications" (his wife continued and had a basic competence in Chinese). (2) is the reference scholarly? it is published by are respectable publisher and I couldn't find reviews saying the author was incompetent. (3) Are there other scholarly sources that contradict, support, or modify the statement. I found (Garcia, George F. (1979-01-01). "Herbert Hoover and the Issue of Race". The Annals of Iowa. 44 (7): 507–515. doi:10.17077/0003-4827.8609. ISSN 0003-4827. Retrieved 2019-05-11.) which on page 509/510 describes Hoover as

[concluding] that the greater penchant of the "European descended races" for mechanization and labor-saving devices was due to inherent differences in "racial instincts and qualities"

(the article has the internal quotes from Hoover's Memoirs) but that Hoover also considered

the Chinese, on the other hand, had a penchant for art, literature, and philosophy; and since their civil service system allowed an elite group of highly intelligent and courageous individuals to "rise from the mass," they were able to make outstanding contributions in these fields.

I think we can make a more nuanced statement. Perhaps

He became deeply interested in Chinese history, but never acquired more than the ability to communicate rudimentarily in Chinese (his wife spent more time studying and gained a basic competence in Chinese). Like many of his white contemporaries he considered the Chinese race as inferior, at least in engineering, though he did consider them capable of making great contributions in art, literature, and philosophy. (cite both Whyte and the source above)

Now I'm not a Hoover scholar and his views likely changed over his lifetime and I have not read his memoirs. --Erp (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

We can read what Hoover wrote for publication in 1900 regarding his experience in directing Chinese labor: "The simply appalling and universal dishonesty of the [Chinese] working classes, the racial slowness, the low average of intelligence, gives them an efficiency far below the workmen of England and America." Quoted in, and part of a detailed analysis by a scholar : Frank Ninkovich (1994). Modernity and Power. University of Chicago Press. p. 90.. For more details regarding Hoover's his negative views on Chinese and Black workers, and his even harsher views on the the British upper-class see George H. Nash, The life of Herbert Hoover: the engineer 1874-1914 (1983) pp. 183-84, 505-7. Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Whyte book

A lot of this article is sourced to Whyte's book, which itself is the subject of a long but funny review here. It makes me think the book is not very neutral. But, I haven't read the article yet, and this isn't really my subject. I'm posting the review link in case anyone here wants to look into it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:386A:A40C:EBB1:ACC0 (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

ARA

The article does not describe Eastern European Relief quiet correctly. I.e. relief in post revolution Russia. DORFAMAN (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to some sources that describe it correctly then? --Erp (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Hitler

It mentions Hitler's rise to power in the first paragraph of the "Later Policies section". This first paragraph is focused on late 1930 and early 1931. It ends with "As the worldwide economy worsened, democratic governments fell; in Germany, Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler assumed power". Though, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Perhaps the sentence which mentions Hitler's rise could be moved to a following paragraph in this section more focused on what happened in 1933. Or, we could simply add a mention that Hitler became chancellor in 1933 so as to not imply he rose in 1930. RosarioFreedom (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

Please change the phrase "Hoover was awarded a honorary doctorate by the Charles University of Prague..." in the "Other honors" section to "Hoover was awarded an honorary doctorate..." in accordance with the orthography and pronunciation rules. Thank you. 2A02:AB04:236:E600:EC2D:34B7:5E3A:C58D (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 DoneFerkjl (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

He lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt then he died of internal bleeding 🩸 47.138.36.205 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

proposed new article on Foreign Policy of Herbert Hoover

I propose starting a new article on the Foreign Policy of Herbert Hoover--to be based on snippets from various other articles and lots of new material. Everyone agrees that world affairs was his long suit, so it seems useful to pull it all together. Any comments or suggestions? Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Views of Race Section

"Was known" References do not support claims (such as Dubois quote and unsupported claims on his views). Dubois expresses HIS views on Hoover in the quote but it doesn't support Hoover's views, which should be the point of such a titled section. Possibly whole section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeefilter (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

The thing is that Herbert Hoover's first son Herbert Charles Hoover was not a Junior because his father's middle name was Clark. 151.47.73.106 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation or Edit needed

The opening paragraph "Hoover staunchly opposed any intervention from the federal government in the U.S. economy." The article goes on to give multiple contradictory examples including the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Federal Home Loan Bank Act. Not to mention his support of tariffs and the deportation of Mexicans also referenced. 96.80.236.53 (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Lou Henry?

Who is "Lou Henry" mentioned in a photo caption? Was that a nickname for Herbert Clark Hoover? Casey (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Right next to that photo is mention of Herbert Hoover marrying Lou Henry. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

John Caspar Branner

Suggesting that a hyperlink be added to the name "John Branner" mentioned in the article section "Sole proprietor." John Branner was elected as the second president of Stanford University. John Branner has a wikipedia biographical article under the name John Caspar Branner. I suggest a hyperlink between the articles. Mercutio~enwiki (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Editing to add the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Casper_Branner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercutio~enwiki (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wealth in modern terms

Currently this reads: "By 1914, Hoover was a very wealthy man, with an estimated personal fortune of $4 million (equivalent to $116.86 million in 2022)". This is an idiotic sentence. I assume that the calculation is correct; but unless his wealth was known to be $4,000,0XX in 1914 it is just plain daft to put that into modern dollars at five significant figures. Far better to say something like ". . .$4 million (equivalent to $100 million or more in modern times)."Cross Reference (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Self-made man?

A "self-made man whose adoptive father (who was a wealthy doctor) had enough money to send him to Stanford University? What is Wikipedia's definition of "self-made"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Stanford was not expensive then. It didn't even charge tuition until 1920 ($40/quarter) though there was still the cost of room/board/books. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/stanford-stories/feature/1920s Erp (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the "self-made man" editorializing should be deleted from the article. He also dropped out of college to work for his uncle's real estate company? I would delete the "self-made man" clause personally but the article is semi-protected right now. Let's please delete it.--212.166.223.142 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

elaboration needed Indian bureau of affairs

1 sentence is not enough I don't think. Could be worthy of a subsection 2001:569:5017:6D00:CFCB:96C2:22A9:6A47 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"Landslide"

The use of the word "landslide" to describe Hoovers victory is vague, and in the US Electoral system could mean mearly hiting 50% +1, which is the bare minimum in other election systems. I suggest removing the word "landslide" and replacing it with how much he won by, or changing landslide to a link to the wiki article that explains the term. Poundsand2 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Sandy