Talk:Roosevelt Corollary

message: It should be noted that the excerpt is from the 1904 Presidential Message to Congress, and the 1905 Message should be added and discussed. See .
--Eibwen 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the 1905 label at  is a typo, that there is no 1905 message that added to the corollary. On that specific site, the actual document is signed 1904, and the linked transcript also says 1904. So there is no 1905 part to talk about/add to the article. Aliceembers (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1905) 

message: This article says "U.S. troops landed in Cuba, suppressed the revolt", the article on the Platt Amendment says "US troops were not used to crush the revolt". I've made the same comment at Talk:Platt Amendment; please discuss there. Joriki 08:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC
:This article no longer says "U.S. troops landed in Cuba, suppressed the revolt", or anything about revolt in Cuba, only that the US intervened in Cuba in 1906-1909. A discussion of this could be added in the future. Aliceembers (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed image to more appropriate one. Cartoon depicts Roosevelt wielding the Monroe Doctrine. Aliceembers (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  suppressed or not? 

message: The overview is poorly worded, with an emphasis on economic jargon and incorrect citations. Frankly, I have no idea what it's trying to say. Greensleaves (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited the introduction for clarity, please comment if you believe it still needs improvement. Aliceembers (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview

message: If corollary started in 1904, why is it criticized as a cause for an event in 1902? See criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.214.208 (talk • contribs) 
:Fair point. I've deleted that paragraph for having various issues. Rd232 talk 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I have created the effects section, using material originally in the Content of Corollary section. These need to be sourced, and the whole section expanded. Aliceembers (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects

message: This article looks really good! I made some changes to the last paragraph of the Departure from Monroe Doctrone section. The tense changed a few times so I tried to make it consistent. I also broke up the first sentence into 2 shorter sentences.
Other than that I made one or two minor edits, but thought that it looked great overall.
Buddy4919 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I have changed some of your edits back to the original, because you edited a direct quote. Since they are LaFeber's words, we cannot edit them like that. Thank you for the other edits, though. Aliceembers (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Departure from Monroe Doctrone

message: Strictly speaking, of course, this makes no sense. The Platt Amendment is an amendment, made in 1901, to a budget bill passed by the Congress. The 1934 Treaty of Relations is an agreement between two nations in 1934. A treaty does not repeal or annul a statute, or an amendment to a statute.
The more accurate way to say this is that the 1934 Treaty of Relations replaced the 1903 Treaty of Relations between the US and Cuba. The text of the 1903 Treaty of Relations was dictated by congress in an amendment to an appropriations bill. The text of the 1903 Treaty was taken word for word from the Platt Amendment, because that amendment gave the conditions upon which the congress would approve the removal of US troops from Cuba. Rather that write sommething equivalent, the parties just adopted the language stipulated by congress. 
But one should not confuse the documents, even though they have (very nearly) the same text, because a Treaty has a different legal standing from an Amendment to a bill passed in the House. Only the vary last condition varies slightly. Whereas in the Platt Amendment, it says that the US and Cuba must sign a treaty that agrees with these conditions, the treaty itself does not have that exact language. It says "we do agree by this treaty" rather than "they must agree by a treaty". At least that is the difference as I remember it. Close. (72.65.52.8 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "led to the annulment of the Platt Amendment by the Treaty of Relations with Cuba in 1934" 

message: I made some major changes to this page after completing extensive research on the topic amongst the most recent historical journals and books relating to the Roosevelt Corollary. My changes are most concentrated on the "Use" and "Criticisms" section (the latter of which I have changed to "Historians' Perspectives") though I have also touched a few other sections- including adding in some further background to Roosevelt and wider mentalities of the period. I included some brief descriptions for my edits as I added them in. I'm open to suggestions on anything that needs better citing (though I tried to include as wholly all of my sources as possible) or alterations that anyone thinks could improve the article further. Thanks
Rose307 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Edits on 06/01/2024.