Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Comments before November 2005

Please remove the improper in the article; I refer to the line Kayla did this -she ******. I would appreciate it very much. My daughther use this resource on occasion.

I have placed a dispute on the neutrality of this article:

This article is somewhat insufficient in coverage of the positive side of the effects of FDR's New Deal policies. It merely states that "the popular belief" is that the New Deal "cured the Depression" and then launches immediately into criticisms. It attacks, for example, the New Deal's association with Keynesianism without any mention of what Keynesianism is and why it might have been presumed to be connected with the New Deal in the first place. Further, it has no explanation for the popularity of FDR during his 1932 and 1936 elections, in contrast to the article on Ronald Reagan; merely perfunctorily stating the overwhelming majorities which he won. The article's statement that "industrial production" did not recover to 1929 levels until the outbreak of World War II is rather selective; GNP recovered above 1929 levels in 1937 and again after 1939. Overall, the article is somewhat unsatisfactory and has poor coverage in certain areas.

-Guest

  • /archive1
  • /archive2

You are free to become a registered User and edit the article as you see fit. Anonymous criticisms are generally ignored. Adam 07:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I see anonymous edits to articles all the time, but if you guys are going to delete all complaints, then there's nothing I can do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.251.5.9 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 September 2005.

Nowhere did anyone say anonymous complaints would be deleted. They do not generally carry much weight, however, and are "generally ignored", as Adam said. However, if you have well-documented and sourced criticisms that fit within the scope of what Wikipedia is (and do not fall into the category of what Wikipedia is not), we regular Wikipedians will be more than happy to listen to you.—chris.lawson (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but I posted an NPOV complaint in this article twice and it was deleted twice, both without explanation. I'm going to post it again, you're free to ignore it but please don't delete it. (18.251.5.9|23:34, 23 September 2005)

It was deleted -- and will be again -- because you did not allow for thorough discussion of the addition on the Talk page first.--chris.lawson 19:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
He raised the criticism nine days ago...that seems like a pretty satisfactory length of time. The fact that nobody has responded to it really isn't his fault. How much time would you recommend? I somewhat agree with Friday, below, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd like for there to be a discussion. Simply saying "I'm going to NPOV-tag this page" and then having no one say anything isn't discussion, and that's why I removed it. I personally don't think there's any reason for it to be there either. When you think about this article in comparison to something like George W. Bush, this is amazingly neutral (or at least amazingly non-controversial; I happen to think that Bush's page is fairly NPOV as well).--chris.lawson 19:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Reading the criticism, I don't really see a reason for the NPOV tag. Better information about the effects of the New Deal would certainly be welcome, as long as it's verifiable. Friday (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Ok, let me expound a bit on the specifics. Perhaps what this article needs is not an NPOV tag but a tag that suggests it needs to be fixed up. However this article needs SOMETHING. The problems can easily be fixed I think. For example, here is what the article has to say about the 1932 presidential campaign:

"Roosevelt's immense popularity in the largest state in the country made him an obvious candidate for the Democratic nomination, which was hotly contested since it seemed clear that Hoover would be defeated at the 1932 presidential election. [Insert ballot struggle between FDR and Al Smith] During the campaign Roosevelt said: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people", coining a slogan that was later adopted for his legislative program.

In November, Roosevelt and his Vice Presidential running mate, John N. Garner of Texas, won 57 percent of the vote and carried all but six states."

Although this section asserts "it seemed clear that Hoover would be defeated" it gives no indication as to why that might be the case. In contrast, look at the section in Ronald Reagan about the 1980 election:

"The campaign, led by William J. Casey, was conducted in the shadow of the Iran hostage crisis; some analysts believe President Jimmy Carter's inability to solve the hostage crisis played a large role in Reagan's victory against him in the 1980 election. Other issues in the campaign included double-digit inflation and unemployment, lackluster economic growth, instability in the petroleum market leading to a return of gas lines, and the perceived weakness of the U.S. national defense.

Reagan's showing in the televised debates boosted his campaign. He seemed more at ease, mocking President Carter's criticisms with remarks like "There you go again." Perhaps his most influential remark was a closing question to the audience, during a time of skyrocketing global oil prices and highly unpopular Federal Reserve interest rate hikes, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

Carter's eventual ouster was accompanied by a 12-seat change in the Senate from Democratic to Republican hands, giving the Republicans a majority in the Senate for the first time in 28 years."

For the 1936 election, the article merely states,

"At the 1936 election Roosevelt won 61 percent of the vote and carried every state except Maine and Vermont."

Whereas the Reagan article is again more complete in giving the background of the campaign:

"In the 1984 presidential election, he was re-elected in a landslide over Carter's Vice President Walter Mondale, winning 49 of 50 states and receiving nearly 60 percent of the popular vote. At the Democratic National Convention, Mondale accepted the party nomination with a speech that is believed to have constituted a self-inflicted mortal wound. In it he remarked "Reagan will raise taxes, I will raise taxes. Reagan won't tell you this, I just did."[1] Reagan accepted the Republican nomination in Dallas, Texas, on a wave of good feeling bolstered by the recovering economy and the dominating performance by the U.S. athletes at the Los Angeles Olympics that summer. Despite a weak performance in the first debate, Reagan recovered in the second and was considerably ahead of Mondale in polls taken throughout much of the race. Reagan's landslide win in the 1984 presidential election is often attributed by political commentators to be a result of his conversion of the "Reagan Democrats," the traditionally Democratic voters who voted for Reagan in that election."

The lack of coverage to FDR's campaigns during the New Deal era (which I think most would agree was the voters' ratification of New Deal policies) is significant because the article's paragraph on the effects of the New Deal seem to take a POV on the side of its detractors. My main complaint is in this paragraph:

"The net effect of these measures was to restore confidence and optimism, allowing the country to begin the long process of recovery from the Depression. The popular belief is that Roosevelt's programs, collectively known as the New Deal, cured the Great Depression. Historians and economists debate over the extent to which this is true."

This much is fine.

"The economic theories of John Maynard Keynes were not widely known in the U.S., and it is doubtful that Roosevelt ever knew of them. Even the large appropriations that Roosevelt extracted from Congress and spent on relief and assistance to industry were not enough to provide a sufficient fiscal stimulus to revive so large an economy as that of the United States. The economy remained sluggish throughout the 1930s, and, in fact, after a partial recovery, slid back towards Depression in 1937 and 1938. Some argue that this was mainly because the high tariff barriers erected in response to the Depression were not removed, and without a revival of international trade there could be no full recovery. It took the massive growth in government spending during World War II to restore industrial production to its 1929 level and eliminate unemployment."

This is where a clear POV is taken with regard to the "debate" which the author set up at the beginning of this paragraph. 1) The article tries to attack the idea that John Maynard Keynes had any effect on Roosevelt's policies. That seems plausible, but why is this sentence even needed? Clearly because many people saw similarities between Keynesianism and the New Deal. The article gives no hint as to what Keynesianism is or why it might be connected to the New Deal. Trying to disprove some notion without first explanaining the notion seems to be an example of POV. 2) The article states that Roosevelt's relief efforts did not "revive so large an economy as that of the United States." I think this is disputable (see below). 3) The notion that the economy "remained sluggish" is also disputable. Unemployment numbers may suggest sluggishness, but GNP numbers suggest the opposite (see below). 4) The article states that "industrial production" did not return to its 1929 until World War II. This leads to the misleading implication that the economy did not recover to its 1929 level until World War II, when in fact it recovered above the 1929 level in 1937, 1939, 1940, and 1941, all largely non-war years.

      Tax       Federal    GNP       Unemp.

Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate

1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins 1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7 1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9 1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6 1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March 1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7 1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1 1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9 1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May 1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June 1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2 1940 6.9 9.9 1941 7.7 12.1 1942 10.3 24.8 1943 13.7 44.8 1944 21.7 45.3 1945 21.3 43.7

Source: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

The following table represents estimated U.S. GDP in 1992 prices. By this level the economy, though with a higher unemployment, had nevertheless recovered to its 1929 level (790.9) and beyond, by 1936/37, well before World War 2.

1929 790.9 593.9 92.4 105.4 35.6 46.3 -10.7 1930 719.7 562.1 59.8 116.2 29.4 40.3 -10.9 1931 674.0 544.9 37.6 121.2 24.4 35.2 -10.8 1932 584.3 496.1 9.9 117.1 19.1 29.2 -10.1 1933 577.3 484.8 16.4 112.8 19.2 30.4 -11.2 1934 641.1 519.0 31.5 127.3 21.4 31.1 -9.7 1935 698.4 550.9 58.0 131.3 22.6 40.7 -18.1 1936 790.0 606.9 75.5 152.5 23.7 40.2 -16.5 1937 831.5 629.7 94.0 147.0 29.9 45.3 -15.4 1938 801.2 619.5 61.3 157.8 29.6 35.2 -5.6 1939 866.5 654.0 79.5 171.8 31.2 36.9 -5.7

Source: http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

Edit: The tables did not come out correctly, just click ont he links in that case if you can't read them.

Indices of Industrial production from 1929-1945 are extremely difficult to find, but I would like to see a source on that regarding the assertion. Template:18.251.5.9

Ok, another 2 days have gone by with no response. So far I have not received a single response beyond "personally, I don't think..." etc etc, whereas I have taken great care in each of my posts to point out explicitly, and consistently, exactly which parts of the article do not conform to NPOV and why they do not conform. As Chris Lawson and Chris Parham have stated, it can only be a discussion if people want to have one. IMO, stating a personal opinion without addressing any specific points does not constitute discussion. I do not think the problems here are very extensive, as they involve primarily 3 paragraphs, but I do not feel qualified to edit them myself since I have little experience in writing wikipedia. Therefore I am still awaiting a response here. Template:18.251.5.9
As you said, the problems aren't very extensive. If you can consolidate what you've got above down to a few pithy sentences, or maybe a couple paragraphs, I'd be happy to work with you on the cleanup. (As an aside, I think the lack of response here is probably indicative that either a) no one really watches this article or b) no one feels very strongly one way or another.)--chris.lawson 04:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, the basic points which need address are the following:
1) Explanation of why many consider the New Deal to be linked with Keynesianism.
2) Change the assertion that the New Deal did not "revive so large an economy as that of the United States" to something more accurate taking into account GDP, unemployment, and stock market figures, while also taking into account that the New Deal did not generate a complete recovery. Graphs & charts would be very useful. Ditto with the assertion that the economy "remained sluggish". (Overall cleanup of the impacts of the New Deal paragraph are in order).
3) Either some kind of source for the industrial production assertion, or its removal.
4) Some discussion of the 1936 campaign.
Points which could also use clarification are further discussion of the 1932 campaign in the post-primary phase. I believe the coverage of Ronald Reagan's campaigns in that article are good and can be used as a model. Of course if it is necessary I will make the modifications myself, though I have very little confidence in my own abilities as I am not a professional historian or written in wikipedia before. Surely there are FDR buffs out there, given his importance in the 20th century. I would still like to post a note on the main page to get people to see this discussion here, though it will probably be deleted again.
Note: Generally, looking at the articles on the U.S. Presidency in Wikipedia, there is a great deal of variance and little consistent structure and organization among them. While of course it would require a huge effort, over the long run it may be advantageous to organize these articles a bit more consistently and apply similiar standards. Best, Template:18.251.5.9

Nothing the above user has said supports his/her contention that there is a POV problem with this article. If the user wishes to edit the article in the manner suggested, he/she is free to do so and then the edits can be debated. I am going to remove the tag. I point out also that this is not an article about the Great Depression, the New Deal or Keynesianism. While some mention of the relationship between these three subjects is obviously relevant to FDR's biography, detailed economic discussion does not belong here. Adam 04:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Very well, since no one is willing to help me, but plenty of people are willing to remove tags, I suppose I have no choice but to try and address these problems by direct edit myself. Firstly I would like to ask a question though,

1) Is the talk page not for discussion? Then why is nobody willing to discuss? 2) If nobody wants to discuss, then nobody has to discuss, but I have pointed out what I genuinely, honestly believe to be some substantial POV problems with this article. I would thus like to insert a POV tag. However, some-one removed the tag saying that discussion is necessary. 3) Thus, I came here and posted discussion points, since someone said discussion is necessary. After some time there was no response to those points, but someone did ask for elaboration. 4) Therefore I elaborated. Again, no response, but Chris did ask that I condense for clairity. 5) Therefore I condensed, after had elaborated originally. Again, no response, despite that I had done everything asked, repeatedly, and followed all diligence, and tried to consciencously cite specific objections, and tried to source those objections as much as I possiby could. 6) I am willing to do anything asked, follow any rules, obey any procedurse, elaborate as necessary, condense as necessary, discuss as necessary, explain as necessary, organize my points as necessary. I am even willing to do all of this if nobody else does anything in return. However all I ask is that my objections be recognized and not be constantly sabotaged. I cannot possibly fight all of you at the same time. If there is something I am doing wrong, I would like nothing in the world except to be rebuked and know what it is.

Humbly, Your most gracious servant Template:18.251.5.9

I have now made the changes in the article mentioned earlier. In addition I added the names Wendell Willkie and Thomas Dewey into the article. Template:18.251.5.9

Those are all worthwhile edits which I see no problem with. You would have done much better just to go ahead and make those edits rather than having a great drama here. I don't really see what "POV" issue they addressed, however. Also, I repeat my suggestion that you become a registered User if you want to edit regularly. You will be paid more attention. Anonymous editors have a bad reputation and their edits tend to get reverted. Adam 23:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Could someone please look into the photo of the "Big Three" at the February 1945 conference in Yalta? If you click on and enlare the photo it looks fine, but there seems to have been some photoshop work done to the photo that appears on the main page... I would fix it myself, but I do not have enough knowledge of wikipedia and editing to do this.--ER 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I attempted to fix. It looks okay on the article page, but the larger version still looks vandalized to me, so I might have done something wrong with the revert. Morris 02:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It looks okay to me both on the page and the larger version. Thanks, --ER 02:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Dime link

Sometime in the spring of 2005, the info about Roosevelt's portrait being on the dime was removed. When was this and who removed it?? 66.32.217.151 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It appeared to be on April 25 when the article was completely re-written. Can anyone check the differences and see if there's any lost info besides this?? 66.32.217.151 00:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, one by Adam Carr at 2:29 April 25 2005. 66.32.217.151 00:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Japanese-American Internment

"Japanese-Americans continued to serve in the U.S. armed forces throughout the war, although they were not employed in the Pacific theatre."

This is not completely true. There were a number volunteers out of the camps who enlisted, going through additional language training, who were deployed as Military Intelligence Service (MIS) soldiers in the Pacific Theater, although their existance had been kept classified until 2000. I'll edit the article to delete the "although they were not employed in the Pacific theatre." Tmurase 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Japanese internment

This is a biography of FDR. This article therefore should focus exclusively on FDR's role, and leave the broader story to the main article. Rjensen 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hi, I would also like to bring up the neutrality of this article. This article reads like my (New York) state-mandated history textbook. I think we're all grown up now and we've learned that not everything was exactly sunshine and rainbows here. Aside from that, the article makes a mis-step in saying "...he was controversial in his day but now is considered in the top tier of American presidents." This isn't entirely true, particularly once you leave the Northeast, you talk to a Libertarian or a traditional Republican (i.e. one whose beliefs are in free market economics and limited government as opposed to Christanity), or you read Howard Zinn (yes, I figured Zinn would like him too). The article paints FDR in a positive light that I don't believe most people would agree with, especially considering the crisis we're currently having with Social Security and the constant debt we've been in since FDR's presendency. Additionally, while the New Deal did help the American economy, we can't ignore the fact that circumstances didn't significantly improve until World War II. FDR's presidency lead us to believe two things that have been pestering American politics since WWII: that the government is responsible for the economy and that wars will lead us out of economic recession. Both of these things are obviously wrong, if you look at Clinton's hands-off approach in light of the booming economy of the 1990's and the current Iraq "war" which is doing wonders for us (I thought oil prices were supposed to go DOWN as a result of an oil war, haha). Now, I'm not saying I entirely agree with many of these facts; I actually like a lot of FDR's reforms. I'm just trying to point out what I feel are some obvious disagreements with the article and with FDR himself. I definitely think this article should have a neutrality flag on it, but I'm not 100% sure how to make it less biased. Let me know what you think :)

Diane M. Napolitano 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

yes the article is full of POV. It has to tell readers there are multiple perspectives. It also has to have much less on his family and much more on FDR's. As it is it largely ignotres his cabinet and top advisors like Louis Howe (not mentioned), the speechwriters like Rosenman or even Harry Hopkins. So what we have is too much private and not enough public FDR, and too much extraneous details about minor issues. Rjensen 16:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not the Encyclopaedia of Revisionist History. The article presents the generally accepted mainstream view of FDR and that is what it should do.
  • What these critics really mean is that the article doesn't sufficiently reflect their left-wing POV (or maybe it's a right-wing isolationist POV: the effect is the same), under which all US presidents, and particularly FDR, must be presented as evil. I make no apologies for this.
  • This is a biographical article not a history of the US or of the Depression etc. Biographical detail is therefore relevant, arguments about economic history are not.

Adam 23:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What's Important? What should be in Wiki?

There are a million facts about FDR. People using the multivolume biographies can write 100,000 words on him. What should Wiki do--include all the wonderful details?? I suggest an encyclopedia has to focus on the big picture. Sara and Eleanor for example have their own articles and people who want details on them should go there. We need to talk about his top advisors--Louis Howe, Harry Hopkins are ignored. That has to change. Rjensen 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can be any length. You are free to add material on Howe and Hopkins if you wish. In a biographical article family material is relevant and I will continue to revert its deletion. Adam 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We are getting length warnings: the article exceeds Wiki Standards. A 100,000 word article is not an encyclopedia. I suggest it's better to plan things out. Let's look at the what the % distribution of space OUGHT to be and then put in the most important facts. That's what real encycopedias do. Rjensen 00:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've recently added a parenthetical statement that FDR may have actually had Guillain-Barre. Here is a link to an article about that. http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/31/roosevelt.polio.reut/ [THD3} 23, December, 2005

Roosevelt family

Much of the dispute seems to revolve around how much information on Roosevelt's family should be included. What about a separate article entitled Roosevelt Family much like the articles on the Bush Family and Kennedy Family? The FDR article could include a brief discussion and link to the family article. TMS63112 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If the article is too long in a technical sense it can be divided, as are many others. I don't oppose a Roosevelt family article, bit I will oppose the deletion of personal biographical material from this article. Adam 00:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. How about moving all the family material that does not relate directly to FDR to articles on ROOSEVELT FAMILY, SARA ROOSEVELT, and Eleanor (who already has her article). The point is that there should be links for people to follow. (Wiki guidelines says articles over 32k are suspect and should be broken up--they flash this warning now.) Rjensen 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Those guidelines were originally implemented because some old web browsers would cut off any text past the 32K mark from text boxes like the ones we edit in, and under earlier versions of the wiki software you couldn't edit one section at a time. Many FAs these days are quite a bit longer. Having said that, it looks like someone tripped up reverting a vandal a while back and removed the "early life" section heading. Restoring that alone will neaten things up quite a bit. ～J.K. 03:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone edits this article to allow more room for other things, I'd like to see more detail on the subject of the Atomic Bomb. It is mentioned only in passing here. Other articles discuss the Manhattan Project in particular, but what about Roosevelt's decision-making process? What kind of agonizing did he go through to use it? What warnings did he get/heed/ignore from Einstein and Oppenheimer? Just a sentence or two would suffice. Joelw 15:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing word

The article contains this paragraph:

Despite Roosevelt's apparent inability to support civil rights, he was still perceived as a black-friendly threat in the American South. A popular anti-Roosevelt song declared: "You kiss the / I'll kiss the Jews / We'll stay in the White House / As long as we choose."

So who do they kiss first? --Fastfission 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)