Jump to content

Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

FDRSeries template crowding lead

The {{FDRSeries}} template, added with this edit from June suddenly seems to be misplaced, something I think I would have noticed before now, if that had been the rendering of the template all along. Is something amiss with the way the template is being rendered by the software? Dhtwiki (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what is causing the problem, but a solution must be found soon or that template has got to go (temporarily). Dustin (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Spartan7W Hi, did you know what is going wrong to the FDRSeries Template??? SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The template suddenly resolved...quite strangely. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm i see. Let me look. No edits have been made, but other series boxes are doing it too.
It must be a wikipedia software problem, its happening to all the boxes I'm aware of.
Its happening on Chrome and Safari, but not Internet Explorer.   Spartan7W §   02:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Supposedly it's fixed. A discussion at the bottom of Talk:Barack Obama points to a Village Pump discussion; according to the VP, you may need to refresh your cache in Chrome (and Safari?), but I didn't follow the link since I don't use Chrome. 2600:1006:B12D:D880:DDF:6999:A965:B6F6 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It should be the Wikipedia software problem, there is no problem to Internet Explorer. SA 13 Bro (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015

Typo - misspelled word

At the end of the 3rd paragraph of the intro, the word "Howevber" appears, rather than However, which should ofc be edited. There are very few, if any, B's in However.

Thank you! Nickyonge (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Image

Just stopped by the find out the age of FDR when he died and noticed the first picture on the page is of FDR in a dress as a kid. Is it just me that finds this inappropriate and likely some kind of oblique right wing attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.9.39 (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not an attack, the pic is probably there since it is the earliest one available of him. I've found that pics of people more often than not start at earlier ages earlier in "life" sections and become more recent as subjects age. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Presidency of FDR" Page

First of all, some of the things written below by others are ridiculous. That said, this is simple: there have been several pages created for high-profile Presidents (including Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, etc.) exclusively devoted to policy & administration - the pages are called "Presidency of ___" I am very surprised that FDR, a massively influential & legendary President, does not have such a page. I believe there is work to be done on the pages of the US Presidents indeed.

  • That's probably a good question. Although I would point out that FDR has many sub-articles already devoted to portions of his presidency. Might ask some vet editors who specialize in presidents and American history. @Rjensen: is one such editor. Dave Dial (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
yes it is possible to split off a "Presidency of FDR" article and I think it's a good idea. It would put on this page a summary of his 4 terms. However this is a LOT of work, It's a huge subject with an enormous literature, Since FDR was so dominant in every aspect of the presidency, there woiuld be a lot of duplication, but that is not a negative. Suggestion: spin off 2 articles: Presidency of fdr 1933-39 ["Doctor New Deal"]; and Presidency of fdr 1940-45 ["Doctor Win the War"]. The topics in the 2 sections are quite different. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yea, that's basically what I thought. A ton of work and it would be better put into two articles, that are bound to be overlapped at points. Another suggestion, I don'y know the relevant 'wiki projects/groups', but it might be a good idea to ask there if there is interest to take on the pretty big task. Dave Dial (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Map of FDR's travel

The map of FDR's presidential travels is incorrect. He did not visit Britain or France while he was President. On the other hand he did visit Morocco. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I don't know how to change the map, I'm going to delete it unless someone fixes it, or at least responds to this post. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nahh, don't delete it, I added a reference for the file. It still needs to be fixed though. Technically FDR did visit both the UK and France, multiple times. Just not UK/France proper. Here is the source. If another editor wishes they can update the map to match the source. Or I will do it, and add different colors for proper and such sometime in the future. But deleting will just cause it to be pushed back, and it's information many readers probably want to use. At least there is a source now. Dave Dial (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but that source is wrong, or at least is being wrongly interpreted. None of those places is or ever has been part of the United Kingdom or France. The British and French colonial empires were legally and constitutionally separate from the metropolitan states. Visiting the Bahamas or Trinidad was not visiting the UK. Visiting Martinique or Morocco was not visiting France. The map is wrong and needs to be either fixed or deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015

--~--17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)~~--67.247.20.100 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)--67.247.20.100 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)--67.247.20.100 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)--67.247.20.100 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)--67.247.20.100 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

File:FDR bio for courage
 Not done it's not clear what you are asking for, and the file you linked to (at the time this comment was posted) doesn't contain anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"declared war" instead of "made war."

Make and do are two generic words in the English language often reversed by non-native speakers. It is always better to use a descriptive non-generic word. "Made war" sounds like a translation from a non-English language. "Declared war" is more descriptive of what happened on that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlananelson (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You must be talking about this sentence: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which he called a "date which will live in infamy", he made war on Japan and Germany. That is a summary sentence in the lead that covers much more than the declaration against Japan. "Make/made war" is a perfectly good English idiom for what is meant (i.e. the totality of FDR's efforts in prosecuting WW2). "That date" must mean Dec. 7th, with regard to the sentence; but FDR's speech to Congress and the declaration took place on the 8th. So, "declared war" would be an inappropriate substitute. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Harlananelson: @Dhtwiki: I have changed the subject 'made war' sentence to read:

"Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which he called "a date which will live in infamy", Roosevelt sought
and obtained the quick approval, on December 8, of the United States Congress to declare war on Japan and, a few days later, on Germany."

This should take care of the problem --- and is much more precisely worded (in place of the potentially rather confusing and ambiguous 'made war'.)

--- Professor JR (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

3rd term flow

"Wilson let General George Pershing make the major military decisions; Roosevelt made the major decisions in his war."

These statements are in opposition. Can anyone clarify this (and/or the intent)? Kassorlae 00:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kassorlae (talk • contribs)

Suggested Changes to this Article

First of all, I think that it would make sense if Franklin Delano Roosevelt's service in the New York state senate, as assistant secretary of the navy, and as governor of New York were put before his presidency so his life would be in chronological order.

Also, maybe the page should be renamed from "Franklin D. Roosevelt" to "Franklin Delano Roosevelt." Just a thought.2601:2C1:C003:EF7A:A1CB:CF40:7068:3225 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please revert vandalism

Please revert this vandalism. 32.218.36.236 (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Done --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Portrait change

Hello all! As you may have noticed, I changed the infobox portrait of President Roosevelt, from P1933 to P1944. This new portrait is an incredibly high quality image: High resolution, great lighting, good composition. It is in rare color, very good quality color, and adds great encyclopedic value. There aren't many high quality color images of President Roosevelt, and this is as good as any color portrait can be, but it has the qualities of a color image process from 1944. See them side-by-side:

P1933
P1944

Now what was wrong with the previous portrait? If you look through all the photos from his governorship and his presidency, in effectively none of these does the President look as young or fresh-faced as he does in P1933. P1933 has alsobeen retouched significantly, which reduces its resolution and detracts from its original appearance. I think it is important to reflect the President, in the infobox, as he appears in most photographs, his own campaign materials, and to what the readers have seen in all other period photographs. I have established why P1944 is an image of superb quality, but it also shows what he looked like during the war, and it is a physical appearance (coloration notwithstanding) that is far more reflective of how he looks in almost all photographs from 1933-1945. Now the fact that this is a formal color portrait is of great interest, because it looks period, it is a rich and interesting photograph, and I think it serves him very well.   Spartan7W §   17:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Who took the original photo and what are its copyrights? Rklawton (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rklawton: Forgot to fix that!  Done   Spartan7W §   19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Rklawton (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I personally prefer the 1933 one. You may think he looks too young in the 1933 one, but I think he looks too old in this one. By 1944, FDR was literally on death's doorstep. And, lest we forget, by 1933, FDR already had 51 years in the rearview mirror.pbp 13:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I approve of the portrait change - the 1944 portrait truly reflects the toll which the enormous weight President Roosevelt had been carrying took upon his already-fragile body. It is important today for us to understand just what extent he was struggling with his health throughout his presidency, and especially in the final two years of his life: when so many monumental decisions of history were made.

I do not approve of the portrait change. The current portrait is a horrendously ugly picture of FDR. Choosing to use this image degrades American history.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Franklin D. Roosevelt. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding working link to page. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Nadir" is a common word used by historians. People come to Wikipedia to learn new ideas and they can enhance their vocabulary too. Here is how ordinary books (not advanced monographs) use the term: 1) popular historian Pierre Berton: "At the nadir of the Depression, half the wage earners in Canada were on some form of relief." 2) memoir: "moved to the West coast from Oklahoma during the Great Depression to seek a better life and a warm climate. It was the nadir of the Great Depression and a bleak winter when my mother...." 3) Encyclopedia of U.S. Labor and Working-class History " the Great Depression's nadir, only 49,000 tons of new shipping were launched." 4) The Little Girl Who Fought the Great Depression: Shirley Temple: Movie "Box offices languished in 1932 and early 1933, the nadir of the Depression," 5) Chicago's 1933-34 World's Fair "Conceived during a tune of economic prosperity and exhibited at the nadir of the Great Depression, the Chicago ..." 6) popular history by Robert S. McElvaine: " The conservative era had reached its zenith—or its nadir, depending upon one's point of view in the Twenties" 7) Daughters of the Great Depression: Women, Work, and Fiction ""the status of the woman worker had reached a nadir" 8) Texas Cities and the Great Depression "The December 1934 suspension of direct relief aid in Tom Green County was the nadir point of the county's relief activities." 9) Encyclopedia of the Great Depression " It is impossible to get accurate figures on the extent of youth joblessness at the nadir of the Depression, but the best estimate..." 10) Pre-Code Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection "Historians of the era dig deep for metaphors that emphasize the extremities of distress in an already extreme time, stretching the language to render the bottommost depths, the trough in an abysmal decade, the nadir of the Great Depression." Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Education

I changed alma mater to the education field. "Alma mater" is singular and he attended two schools. Listing a school without a degree-earned serves no purpose for multi-degree people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

socking

Be advised, LelouchEdward was a sock of Miracle dream. Both have edited this article before so interested parties should be aware. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add a link to the Harry S. Truman Article, under the "Succeeded by" Section of President portrait info. 2607:FEA8:33E0:929:E868:35DF:B623:D8C4 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done that would be repetitive when Truman is already linked in the infobox under "Vice President". One link is sufficient. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2016

text("Amazon made by F.D Roosevelt",89,90); Writersurpress (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2016 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! 83.145.195.17 (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Slight correction

In the Marriage and Affairs section, one paragraphs starts with 'Roosevelt's son Elliott claimed his that father had a 20-year affair'. Obviously, words 'his' and 'that' should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:797B:EA00:E0C0:A22C:1B86:9AFB (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Dustin (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

AHEPA

Please note that the following former Presidents/Vice Presidents were members of AHEPA ; Franklin Delano Roosevelt - President of the United States Harry S. Truman - President United States Gerald Ford - President United States Hubert H. Humphrey - Vice-President United States Spiro T. Agnew - Vice-President United States Robert F. Kennedy - U.S Senator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hellenic_Educational_Progressive_Association58.6.212.130 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is worth including for FDR, but the other men you mention belonging in it certainly isn't relevant here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Energized

{{tone}}: Energized by his personal victory over polio, FDR relied on his persistent optimism and activism to renew the national spirit. Is that a quote or a fanzine? I arrived on this page as an "energized ex-wikiholic" via term limits in the constitution out of curiosity. –2A03:2267:0:0:84D:D0E9:3511:C546 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

it's a paraphrase that reflects the consensus of RS. see James Tobin (2013). The Man He Became: How FDR Defied Polio to Win the Presidency. Simon and Schuster. pp. 4–7.. Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone else thank the opening section is too beefy? --Volvlogia (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

USA Declares War on Germany

In the article it states "Roosevelt sought and obtained the quick approval on the following day for Congress to declare war on Japan and, a few days later, on Germany." In fact Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler on Dec 11, 1941, declared war on the USA. I would suggest the article be changed as follows, °Roosevelt sought and obtained the quick approval on the following day for Congress to declare war on Japan. On Dec 11, 1941, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler declared war on the USA. This would make the article more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.149.242 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2017

in paragraph 1.1 Early life and education, I suggest to add "Philip Delano (with link: Philip Delano ) between "immigrant ancestors" and "of the 17th century" (source = Wikipedia article on Philip Delano). 

90.42.224.197 (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 Not done Where has it been established that this was one of FDR's relatives? Just because he has the last name "Delano" doesn't automatically mean he's one of Sara Delano's relatives. We also can't solely rely on what other Wikipedia articles state per WP:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The Holocaust and attitudes toward Jews

can someone tell me why this is not incorprated into the main article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt%27s_record_on_civil_rights#The_Holocaust_and_attitudes_toward_Jews

some parts of this as well Évian Conference

thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Franklin D. Roosevelt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Franklin D. Roosevelt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franklin D. Roosevelt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Page Editing

Where do I go to become an editor for this page? I know this isn't a question forum, but I really want to know this. Buffy227 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. To become an autoconfirmed user, your account must be at least 4 days old and have no fewer than 10 contributions. You'll then automatically have the ability to edit this page and other semi-protected articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Navy ships

It is odd that this article does not even mention the cruiser USS Augusta, which F.D.R. took to Argentia, Newfoundland, in August 1941 for his first meeting with Churchill on the HMS Prince of Wales. The article does not mention on which ship F.D.R. reached the Casablanca Conference in November 1942, but at least is does mention the new cruiser USS Quincy, which took F.D.R. back to Morocco in November 1943 to reach the Cairo Conference and the big Tehran Conference. F.D.R. flew from Morocco eastward to Cairo and Tehran, but then he returned from Africa on the Quincy.
This article does not even mention the new battleship USS Iowa (BB-61), which in November 1944, took F.D.R. from Virginia to Malta, from whence F.D.R. and Churchill flew on to the big Yalta Conference with Premier Josef Stalin. Then F.D.R. flew back to wherever the Iowa was, and thence back to the United States. 47.215.188.197 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Medical incompetence about FDR's hypertensive crisis

His doctor should have noted FDR's grave health risk with his blood pressure at hypertensive emergency levels, as Churchill's doctor Lord Moran did. Not that there was much that could be done about in the days before antihypertensive drugs:

Hypertension, however, was not always considered a disease as we know it now. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was given a clean bill of health by his physician even when his BP was recorded as ~220/120. A few years later while at Yalta, Winston Churchill’s personal physician noted in his diary that President Roosevelt “appeared to be have had signs of ‘hardening of the arteries disease’ and had a few months to live.” Subsequent events demonstrated the truth of his diagnosis. President Roosevelt ultimately had a fatal hemorrhagic stroke 2 months later, and his death brought hypertension’s potential as a deadly malady to the lime light (5).[1] 50.79.227.209 (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mohammad G. Saklayen and Neeraj V. Deshpande, Timeline of History of Hypertension Treatment, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 23 February 2016 | doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2016.00003

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2017

There is an incomplete sentence near the bottom of this article. Search for 'out fared badly'.

However, enemy aliens and people of Japanese ancestry were taken under control. out fared badly. 128.141.161.254 (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done I just removed the sentence. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Collier 1974 reference?

I am unsure if the Collier 1974 reference (citation 92 on 8/29/2017) is correct. I can't seem to access the bibliographic entry. I'm probably just missing something obvious. Could someone else please take a look and explain? Is Collier supposed to be Collier's Encyclopedia, a book, or something else? AAABBB222 (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

probably the old encyclopedia. I replaced w a much better source: Eleanor Roosevelt (1960). You Learn by Living. p. 35. Rjensen (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2017

Request: I found a citation and would like to add it. Marlinagtz (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2017 (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. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 20:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Unemployment rates in two articles seem self-contradictory

Under "Economic policies" in FDR article, the graph ("Unemployment rate in the US 1910–1960, with the years of the Great Depression (1929–1939) highlighted") shows a maximum unemployment rate of about 21%. Yet the text says that the rate was 25% when FDR took office, falling to 14.3% by 1937. 25% is greater than 21%, so the article seems self-contradictory. * The "Great Depression" article includes the same graph. This time, the text (under "Roosevelt's New Deal") says the unemployment rate fell from 25% to 9% in the 1933-1937 period. Again, the 25% rate seems self-contradictory, since the graph maxes out at 21%. In addition, the graph does not go below 15% until 1940, so the 9% rate in 1937 also seems self-contradictory. * Could someone with some expertise in unemployment rates take a look at this? I have no idea what the correct numbers are, but the articles seem self-contradictory. Or maybe I'm missing something. AAABBB222 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's a confusion among scholars--should people with paying jobs on relief agencies (FERA, CWA, WPA, CCC) be counted as "unemployed" (this gives a much higher rate) -- or since they work every day and get a $ paycheck they can be counted as employed. Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It is reasonable that there is a confusion among scholars. However, the self-contradictions remain, without any compensating explanation in the article. In addition, as previously pointed out, the two articles contradict each other - 14.3% vs 9% rate in 1937 - and that is almost certainly not confusion among scholars. AAABBB222 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Got fixed, by Orser67. Numbers are no longer contradictory. Includes explanation of the two different ways of measuring unemployment, and shows both sets of numbers. AAABBB222 (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2017

Early life and marriage There are some important details missing.

  • The section could easily leave the reader with the impression that FDR started Groton School when he was 16 (he enrolled at 14).
  • No start date for FDR's Harvard education (1900).
  • No mention of FDR's year of graduate work at Harvard after he graduated with undergraduate in 1903. He was editor-in-chief of The Harvard Crimson as a graduate student.
  • FDR registered as a Democrat while attending Harvard.


Marriage, family, and affairs

No mention of Alice Sohier. If a rejected proposal doesn't fit here the title might be broadened to include early romance.

JustaZBguy (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"powerful men in top positions" during FDR's first term

Under FDR > Presidency (1933–1945) "Roosevelt appointed powerful men to top positions but made certain he made all the major decisions, regardless of delays, inefficiency or resentment."

I suggest an edit to this sentence to read: "Roosevelt appointed powerful people to top positions but made certain he made all the major decisions, regardless of delays, inefficiency or resentment." OR "Roosevelt appointed powerful men and women to top positions but made certain he made all the major decisions, regardless of delays, inefficiency or resentment."

Roosevelt appointed Frances Perkins, for instance, to Secretary of Labour in his first term, which was a landmark appointment of a female political figure. I think it warrants a more gender neutral iteration of the sentence, in order to improve accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebabrewer (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Perkins was not powerful--hers was a symbolic appointment says Alan Brinkley (1998). Liberalism and Its Discontents. Harvard University Press. p. 34.. Rjensen (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I changed the word to people. Whether or not Perkins was just a figurehead, there's no real downside to using the gender-neutral term. Orser67 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The source you posted doesn't really back up your claim: "Roosevelt appointed the first woman cabinet member...and he named more women to secondary positions than any president had ever done." It does go on to mention that the New Deal didn't seek to challenge traditional gender roles, but that is a different matter from his appointments, which is what this particular sentence addresses. Orser67 (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

Remove Franklin from Infobox shown on right (shown in asterisks)------->
It is a double list entry. There is no link either.

Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 10
Children

Zanderp25 (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as stated in the Franklin D. Roosevelt#Marriage, family, and affairs section there was a son Franklin Roosevelt (1909 – 1909) as well as a Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr. (1914 – 1988) so this is not a double entry, and having died so young we do not have an article, on Franklin, but he was still one of FDR's children - Arjayay (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • No; one brother who only lived for several months was named "Franklin", then FDR and Eleanor had their son FDR Jr (had middle name this time). "Taking" a sibling's name would imply somebody changed their own name to match a sibling's identity. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

66.26.74.83 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello i am form the cretonic stage of foglike antibosnimism

Not done: Not a request. ToThAc (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Independence for the Philippines?

I think that either this article would be much improved if there was mention of him signing the Tydings–McDuffie Act, which granted independence to the Philippines. This is arguably one of the most substantial acts in all of American history, as it ended decades of American rule over those islands and changed the legal status of millions of people. The exclusion of any mention of this is especially glaring considering that all three other presidents who oversaw the rolling back of American territory (James Monroe and John Tyler for their negotiations over the border with British Canada that saw the US surrender any claim to some land they previously claimed to be American territory; and Jimmy Carter for returning the Canal Zone to Panama) have these moves mentioned in their respective Wikipedia articles, and none of these decisions covered as much land or as many people. Additionally, FDR's pre-war foreign policy is given substantial enough coverage in this article, so there is no reason to exclude one of his most consequential decisions in this category. 207.255.107.35 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

FDR was not much involved--you should add the item to the Presidency of FDR article--it fits better there. Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Good Article

I'm thinking about nominating this article as a good article. Any comments/objections? Orser67 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Before that can feasibly happen, we must be sure that every statement is credibly cited. From a glance, one major neutrality concern I have is the "Criticism" section, which looks like undue negative weight (especially when lumped all into one section) and is basically asking for trouble. In any case, it would also help to have an FDR expert examine whether this addresses all of the major aspects of his life without going into excessive/irrelevant details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the criticism section; I don't think any of the other presidents have one. What exactly do you mean by "credibly cited"? I assume you just mean that it conforms to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Orser67 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Complying with WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources when it comes to citations. In other words, backing everything up with references that are overall known to be accurate. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
The sourcing issues I noticed last year appear to have been adressed. The citation needed tags are gone and have been replaced with citations. The only obvious sentence that needs cited is the last sentence of one of the paragraphs in the 1932 election sentence. I don't see any obstacle to the article being nominated, unless one of the top contributors on this article objects. Nice work, @Orser67:. Knope7 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment and observations; I'll make a few more edits and then nominate the article in the next couple weeks. Orser67 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated the article. Orser67 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

Under "Second Term", replace "In the November 1938 elections, Democrats lost six Senate seats and 71 House seats, with losses were concentrated among pro-New Deal Democrats" with "In the November 1938 elections, Democrats lost six Senate seats and 71 House seats, with losses concentrated among pro-New Deal Democrats." [Take out "were"] Coreybchapman (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done feminist (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

output of reference checking script (testing)

  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (7 with; 102 without);
  • Dallek 2017, p. 28–29. P/PP error? p. 28–29.;
  • Rowley 2010, p. 3–6. P/PP error? p. 3–6.;
  • Dallek 2017, p. 35–36. P/PP error? p. 35–36.;
  • Brands 2009, pp. 160. P/PP error? pp. 160.;
  • Smith 2007, p. 139–140. P/PP error? p. 139–140.;
  • Smith 2007, p. 171–172. P/PP error? p. 171–172.;
  • Smith 2007, p. 176–177. P/PP error? p. 176–177.;
  • Smith 2007, p. 177–181. P/PP error? p. 177–181.;
  • Burns 1956, p. 157, 167-68. P/PP error? p. 157, 167;
  • Roosevelt, Franklin Delano (1933). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Mary E. Stuckey (2015). Missing ISBN;
  • Belknap, Michal (2004). Missing ISBN;
  • Justus D. Doenecke and Mark A. Stoler (2005). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Dallek 1995, p. 146–147. P/PP error? p. 146–147.;
  • a b Historical Statist Missing ISBN;
  • Historical Statistics Missing ISBN;
  • Smith 2007, p. 573–574. P/PP error? p. 573–574.;
  • a b c Smith 2007, p. 575–576. P/PP error? p. 575–576.;
  • Statistical Abstract, US: Bureau of the Census, 1946, p. 173 21 21 Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Smith 2007, p. 578–581. P/PP error? p. 578–581.;
  • Black, Conrad (2005) Missing Publisher;
  • Burns, James MacGregor (1956). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • 35 Missing Publisher;
  • ——— (1990), Missing Publisher;
  • Goodwin, Doris Kearns (1995), Missing Publisher;
  • Gunther, John (1950), Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Jenkins, Roy (2003), Missing Publisher;
  • Lash, Joseph P (1971), Missing Publisher;
  • Leuchtenburg, William (2015). Missing ISBN;
  • Morgan, Ted (1985), Missing Publisher;
  • Ward, Geoffrey C (1985), Missing Publisher;
  • ——— (1992), Missing Publisher;
  • Alter, Jonathan (2006), Missing Publisher;
  • Badger, Anthony (2008), Missing Publisher;
  • Kennedy, David M (1999), Missing Publisher;
  • Leuchtenburg, William E. (1963). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • McMahon, Kevin J (2004), Missing Publisher;
  • Rauchway, Eric (2008), Missing Publisher;
  • Ritchie, Donald A (2007), Missing Publisher;
  • Rosen, Elliot A (2005), Missing Publisher;
  • Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr (1957–60), Missing Publisher;
  • Shaw, Stephen K; Pederson, William D; Williams, Frank J, eds. (2004), Missing Publisher;
  • Sitkoff, Harvard, ed. (1985), Missing Publisher;
  • Hamilton, Nigel (2014), Missing ISBN;
  • Langer, William; Gleason, S Everett (1952), Missing Publisher;
  • Larrabee, Eric, Commander in Chief: Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date;
  • Reynolds, David (2006), Missing Publisher;
  • Sherwood, Robert E (1949) Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Weinberg, Gerhard L (1994), Missing Publisher;
  • Barnes, Harry Elmer (1953), Missing Publisher;
  • Russett, Bruce M (1997), Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Plaud, Joseph J (2005), Missing ISBN;
  • Powell, Jim (2003), Missing Publisher;
  • Robinson, Greg (2001), Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Schivelbusch, Wolfgang (2006), Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Smiley, Gene (1993), Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Wyman, David S (1984), Missing ISBN;
  • Buhite, Russell D; Levy, David W, eds. (1993), Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Craig, Douglas B (2005), Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Houck, Davis W (2002), Missing ISBN;
  • ——— (2001), Missing ISBN;
  • ——— (1988), Missing ISBN;
  • Cantril, Hadley; Strunk, Mildred, eds. (1951), Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Loewenheim, Francis L; Langley, Harold D, eds. (1975), Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
  • Nixon, Edgar B, ed. (1969), Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Roosevelt, Franklin Delano (1945) Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • ——— (1946), Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"political wilderness"?

I do not think FDR had a "political wilderness". To me, "political wilderness" implies being out of favor. But I think instead of being out of favor, FDR was just sidelined with his paralytic illness. It took him a while to adapt, and to rethink his life. In contrast, everyone agrees that Winston Churchill had a "political wilderness". So could we rename the section "Paralytic illness and political wilderness (1921–1928)" to something more accurate (IMO), such as "Paralytic illness and aftermath (1921–1928)", or some other better title. Along with that, I would also suggest maybe moving the last paragraph of the section to the next section, to keep the content related to his illness together, and the content related to his return to politics together. What do others think? AAABBB222 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed the name to "political comeback." I like the section as it is because I think the 1920s were a discrete period for him in that he (with the help of Howe) was simultaneously dealing with his illness and preparing his return to politics. Orser67 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree (I think) that "political wilderness" was incorrect characterization. I still think it better to have separate section for his illness, and fold the information concerning his return to politics into next section, because it separates the different subjects (illness and politics). The section could be "Paralytic illness and aftermath (1921-1928)". The last paragraph could start the next section. The current version is adequate, but not as good, IMO, because essentially just chronological-based (not subject-based). AAABBB222 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

maybe some extraneous categories?

It seems to me there are extraneous categories. Or maybe this is just par for the course? FDR is both a 19th and 20th century Episcopalian? Might it suffice to say he is a 20th century Episcopalian? He is of Dutch, English, and French descent? The article doesn’t say anything about French descent, so can we leave that out? My guess is there are other nationalities, if we looked far enough back... He belongs to Roosevelt, Bulloch, Delano, and Livingston families. Seems like a lot of “families”. Can we maybe limit to Roosevelt and Delano? “US Synthetic Rubber Program”? Well, he was President, so he had something to do with it, but it seems extraneous to me. “Operation Overlord People”? Again, he was President at the time, but did he play a direct part in planning the invasion? The article does not say so, so it seems extraneous to me. The other categories seem OK to me. Maybe there is a good reason for the current categories, but to me it seems like a few categories too many, and not helpful for the reader. What do others think? AAABBB222 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the categories. I was also tempted to remove "American Philatelic Society", since seems very extraneous compared with other categories, and because already listed under "American philatelists", so seems more emphasis than needed. I refrained for now. AAABBB222 (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2018

2601:249:100:D48:4963:5A73:9C57:3747 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything I'm missing at Cannabis policy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration?

Is anyone aware of any stance of President Roosevelt on cannabis/marijuana, other than what I already have in my short article? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on April 5, 2018

Under the Civil rights, internment, and the Holocaust section the text states, "..., as well as the findings of the Roberts Commission, which concluded that the attack on Pearl Harbor had been assisted by Japanese-Americans."

The sentence should be changed to, "..., as well as the findings of the Roberts Commission, which concluded that the attack on Pearl Harbor had been assisted by Japanese spies."

The Roberts Commission does not state that the attack on Pearl Harbor was assisted by American citizens of Japanese ancestry.

Section XVI of the report states the following:

"There were, prior to December 7, 1941, Japanese spies on the island of Oahu. Some were Japanese consular agents and others were persons having no open relations with the Japanese foreign service. These spies collected and, through various channels transmitted, information to the Japanese Empire respecting the military and naval establishments and dispositions on the island. "

Later in the report when discussing a different topic, the writers of the report are very clear to point out American citizens of Japanese ancestry. As seen here:

"..., asserting that their arrest would tend to thwart the efforts which the Army had made to create friendly sentiment toward the United States on the part of Japanese aliens resident in Hawaii and American citizens of Japanese descent resident in Hawaii and create unnecessary bad feeling."

Therefore if the spies were of American nationality, the report did not specifically state this, even though it was clear to make the distinction when discussing other matters.

tldr - Japanese-Americans should be changed to Japanese spies.

The full text of the Roberts Commission - http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html

Theresnodifference (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Theresnodifference

 Done Thanks for making me read the damn Roberts Commission. /sarcasm Just kidding, Hoss. I changed it to Japanese spies, since it explicitly states in the Roberts Commission report that fact, as well as recommendations of not alienating native hawaiians and Americans of Japanese descent. Dave Dial (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for the correction. Orser67 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned article

Could someone take a look at Franklin D. Roosevelt in Central New York and see if it could be linked to as it is currently an orphan. TIA Gbawden (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Europe trip 1901

I think this is relevant per source. This happened during his formative years (first trip abroad?). The young man got to meet the big kaiser (apparently just like that), the sources use this event to show what standing the Roosevelts had. --— Erik Jr. 22:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the Norway trip contributes enough to warrant inclusion in this already very long article. Or perhaps the story could be greatly shortened, say to one sentence. The story says little or nothing about FDR. And I do not think it needs to be established that the Roosevelt family had "standing", as that seems already clear from the article. And the article already says "Frequent trips to Europe—he made his first excursion at the age of two and went with his parents every year from the ages of seven to fifteen ...", so the story seems redundant. Of course, I am willing to go along with the consensus. AAABBB222 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure can be shortened a bit, but keep the main point. While it is perhaps a detail, printed biographies use this specific event to make a more general point. FDR was only 19 and got to meet the Kaiser that some 10 years late became the bad guy of WW2, I guess it must have been an experience for a young clever man. --— Erik Jr. 21:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not relevant and I removed it. Additionally, the sources cited lacked page numbers. There are a lot of fascinating aspects of FDR's life that aren't included in this article due to size concerns. Hopefully at some point someone will create an "early life of FDR" article that includes things like this. Orser67 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, it is relevant. Now this kind of info is hidden and not easy to pick up in the future. I dont think this is a constructive way of developing the article. --— Erik Jr. 00:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with AAABBB222 -- it's a pleasant story that belongs in a 500-page biography. Put it here and readers will be misled into assuming that if Wikipedia has it it must be somehow important. It tells readers very little about Roosevelt's attitudes toward Europe, Germany, other countries, and the world wars. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I dont agree. It is not about a vacation, it is about the encounter with the kaiser. Sure it can be presented with fewer sentences. At least 2 biographies mentioned this episode. This happended during FDRs formative years and also illustrates family's standing. This information is now lost if somebody later wants to break out a subarticle on "Early years of FDR". So I dont think this is a constructive process. On NO WP we dont delete well sourced material like this, we keep it as part of a never-ending process of developing an article. And I certainly dont agree about deleting content because page numbers are missing, not constructive. — Erik Jr. 10:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It would help to have the kaiser's thoughts on the meeting, if you want to use it to establish the family's standing. And meeting the kaiser says what about Roosevelt's development? As it stood, it was trivial, and therefore undue, no matter how well sourced. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Map of Axis and Allies in 1944 is wrong

The Map of axis and allies in 1944 shows Finland as a member of the Allies in 1944, but it was a member of the Axis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.128.206 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to this map of December, 1944, Finland had already signed the Moscow Armistice in September of 1944. Which Finland forces agreed to drive the Nazis, their former Axis partners, from it's territory. This is known as the Lapland War. Which reflects the linked map. Dave Dial (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"Labor votes" addition seems too detailed

The new addition "Labor votes proved especially crucial in the industrial Midwest, which had traditionally been a Republican stronghold." seems way too detailed for article about FDR, plus makes long article even longer with citation, plus not even included in separate article about the election, plus already mentioned about labor votes. So I deleted for now. AAABBB222 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2018

Hello fellow Wikipedia Editors: Kindly include the following text into Section 6.3 Third and Fourth terms (1941-1945) - Lead-up to the war, immediately after the first paragraph which begins with "Roosevelt's third term was dominated by Worlds War II. By 1940, re-armament was in high gear, partly to expand and re-equip the Army and Navy"....ect. and immediately before the second paragraph which begins with "In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchil conducted a highly secret bilateral meeting in which they drafted the Atlantic Charter"...ect. The new second paragraph in this section might read as follows: By July 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (OCIAA) in response to perceived propaganda efforts in Latin America by Germany and Italy. Through the use of news, film and radio broadcast media in the United States, Roosevelt sought to enhance his Good Neighbor policy, promote Pan-Americanism and forestall military hostility in Latin America through the use of cultural diplomacy.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Media Sound & Culture in Latin America. Editors: Bronfman, Alejanda & Wood, Andrew Grant. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburg, PA, USA, 2012, Pgs. 41-54 ISBN 978-0-8229-6187-1 books.google.com See Pgs. 41-54
  2. ^ Anthony, Edwin D. Records of the Office of Inter-American Affairs. National Archives and Record Services - General Services Administration, Washington D.C., 1973, P. 1-8 Library of Congress Catalog No. 73-600146 Records of the Office of Inter-American Affairs at the U.S. National Archive at www.archives.gov
  3. ^ Thomson, Charles Alexander Holmes, Overseas information service of the United States Government, The Brookings Institution, 1948. Cf. p.4.
  4. ^ Dissonant Divas in Chicana Music: The Limits of La Onda Deborah R. Vargas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2012 p. 152-157 ISBN 978-0-8166-7316-2 OCIAA (Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs), FDR's Good Neighbor Policy, CBS, Viva America, La Cadena de las Americas on google.books.com
  5. ^ "84 - Executive Order 8840 Establishing the Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, July 30, 1941", The American Presidency Project
  6. ^ "1941: Executive Order 8840", Federal Register, 1941.

Kindly accept my sincerest thanks in advance for your kind and thoughtful consideration along with my best wishes for the continued success of your editorial efforts on Wikipedia. Repspectfully, 72.69.152.90 (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)JJ 72.69.152.90 (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC7V7DC5768 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
There are six references supporting a short paragraph, which may be Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Please suggest ways to trim them. I see several are not available online. I myself would keep one widely available offline source that provides a good overview and what appears to be a presidential directive, which is available online. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a thought - Links might also be added within the paragraph to Wikipedia's articles on Good Neighbor Policy, Pan-Americanism and cultural diplomacy to provide additional insights for the reader. Many thanks in advance!104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)PS
A link to the article Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs might also be appropriate. Many thanks again!104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)PS

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

Hello fellow Wikipedian Editors: In Section 6.3.1 - Lead-up to the war , the second paragraph begins with the sentence "By July 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the creation of...ect" Kindly edit this paragraph to include links to several articles in Wikipedia which serve to augment this paragraph including the following:

Many thanks in advance for your thoughtful and kind consideration. With best wished 104.207.219.150 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)PS 104.207.219.150 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, except for Good Neighbor policy, which was already linked earlier, per MOS:DUPLINK. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:FDR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking for a book review FDR wrote

The book reviewed was Jefferson and Hamilton, by Claude G. Bowers. The review appeared in the New York Evening Journal. FDR said it was the only review he ever wrote.

I find it hard to believe this hasn't been included in some collection of his writings, but I can't find it. (Not a person I know much about, I'm working on Bowers.) I would be grateful for any suggestion. deisenbe (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Home-schooled in a public school

How was Roosevelt home-schooled until the age of 14 if he attended a public school in Germany at the age of 9? Surtsicna (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the text to remove its implausibility but think it should be checked against sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Too many photos

The first half of this article looks like the bedroom wall of a politically obsessed 14 year old girl. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope it's better now. Surtsicna (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, that did not last. Dhtwiki, can you please explain why all of those images are necessary? On my browser, the picture of the 2-year-old Roosevelt now appears next to the text about his shooting, golfing, and sailing; the picture of the 11-year-old Roosevelt appears next to the paragraph describing his graduation from Harvard; and the picture of the 18-year-old Roosevelt appears next to the text that mentions him having six children. I do not see much logic in that. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've essentially restored the photo of Roosevelt at age 11 (not 12 as I have it in edit summary) by restoring the multiple-image template. That places all photos in section on right, which rids it of distracting text sandwiching, and of course leaves the photo where Roosevelt appears as a politically obsessed 4 year old girl because that's a keeper. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
To add to the above, I would miss the 11-year-old photo in progression of ages. I think picture captions make it clear at what age he is, and while I think picture relevancy to text is a virtue, this placement doesn't violate that too badly. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, much of the photos don't add anything encyclopedic, in that they don't inform or enhance the text. We know he was a child. He looked like a child. Later on he was a teen, then a man, then a president and there are thousands of photographs of him in archives. Images should be chosen carefully and selectively for relevance (and the ability to fit comfortably without crowding), not shoehorned in for decoration. There is a better repository for images, and that's Commons:Franklin Delano Roosevelt. If we simply must see how he progressed from ages 2 to 18, a more concise (i.e. smaller) single photo montage might be placed in the childhood section, such that we're not still looking at him as a youth while reading about his extramarital affairs. 19:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Securities Exchange Comission

The SEC came from Theodore's time in office. Can any one confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieAvigailL (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The SEC was established under FDR. It might have been inspired by policies or concepts from TR's presidency, but you don't make it clear that that's the issue here. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about the dog in rare photograph of Roosevelt in a wheelchair

The article contains a photograph of Roosevelt in a wheelchair, where he is coddling his dog Fala. A little girl is also shown in this photo. I'm not so sure that this dog is actually Fala. I've seen pictures and videos of Fala on the Internet, and the dog in the photograph appears to be at least three times the size of the Scottie that FDR took with him into history. The dog in this photo might be A dog, but not Fala.Anthony22 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

Like most of his Groton classmates, Roosevelt went to Harvard College.[20] Roosevelt was an average student academically,[21] and he later declared, "I took economics courses in college for four years, and everything I was taught was wrong."[22] He was a member of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity[23] and the Fly Club.[24] Roosevelt was relatively undistinguished as a student or athlete, but he became editor-in-chief of The Harvard Crimson daily newspaper, a position that required great ambition, energy, and the ability to manage others.[25]

Please add the below text to the education and early career section: "Franklin Roosevelt, along with being a member of Alpha Delta Phi, involved with the Fly Club, and being editor-in-chief of The Harvard Crimson, was also a cheerleader from 1901-1903 at Harvard University. Not only was he the first cheerleader to become president but he was one of the first cheerleaders in history. With cheer getting its start in 1898, Roosevelt joined the team, which was considered “an HONOR” to be on (CBS, 2014). He is joined by three other presidents, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, who were all cheerleaders before rising to the role of President of the United States. At a time when cheerleading was an all-male sport, it was regarded as “ranking hardly second to that of having been a quarterback.” (Wade, 2013) It signaled good leadership and granted him public appeal. This ultimately carried over to help launch Roosevelt’s political career."

Roosevelt's father died in 1900, causing great distress for him.[26] The following year, Roosevelt's fifth cousin Theodore Roosevelt became President of the United States. Theodore's vigorous leadership style and reforming zeal made him Franklin's role model and hero.[27] Roosevelt graduated from Harvard in 1903 with an A.B. in history. He entered Columbia Law School in 1904, but dropped out in 1907 after passing the New York bar exam.[28][b] In 1908, he took a job with the prestigious Wall Street firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn, working in the firm's admiralty law division.[30]

Below are my sources for the added paragraph: CBS News. 2014. ​“Almanac: The 1st cheerleader.” CBS News, November 2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/almanac-the-1st-cheerleader/. Cellania, M. 2011. “Cheerleading and Some Famous Cheerleaders.” Neatorama, [blog], July 1. https://www.neatorama.com/2011/07/01/cheerleading-and-some-famous-cheerleaders/. Normand, A. 2016. “10 Political Figures Who Started as Cheerleaders.” Varsity, February 10. https://www.varsity.com/news/10-political-figures-who-started-as-cheerleaders/. Pieroni, L. 2017. “4 U.S. Presidents You Didn't Know Were Cheerleaders.” Flocheer, July 6. https://www.flocheer.com/articles/5067734-4-us-presidents-you-didnt-know-were-cheerleaders. Wade, L. 2013. “The Manly Origins of Cheerleading.” Pacific Standard, June 14. https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-manly-origins-of-cheerleading-56691. Cottonaw (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: We don't have a "Mostly not done indicator" so "Partly" will have to do. The insertion of six sentences and part of a seventh about only one of Roosevelt's student activities is greatly undue emphasis on this activity. This is not an article about cheering, after all. We do, in fact, have an article about cheerleading and it has a history section that may make better use of these contributions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:NDAC#National Defense Advisory Commission

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:NDAC#National Defense Advisory Commission. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Secret map speech

What about his "secret map" speech in October 1941? The map was actually a forgery from British secret intelligence. (86.159.61.208 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

InfoBox entry Columbia Law School JD

I don't think the infobox should say he had a JD from Columbia.

From the article:

He entered Columbia Law School in 1904, but dropped out in 1907 after passing the New York bar exam.[29][b] In 1908, he took a job with the prestigious Wall Street firm of Carter Ledyard & Milburn, working in the firm's admiralty law division.[31]

In 2008, Columbia awarded Roosevelt a posthumous Juris Doctor degree.[30]

It appears he attended Columbia Law School but did not graduate. Passed the Bar and began working in a law office. It is not clear if he was an attorney at this point or 'reading law'. So I think the honorary JD should not be in the infobox. Geo8rge (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I also don't think that the honorary JD should be in the infobox. Orser67 (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Antisemite

[1]" "there is little doubt that DFR was an anti-Semite... FDR made anti-Semitic comments in private" - should this be mentioned in the article? Some other sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Granted, this is a complex issue and arguments have been made to the contrary ([6]) but I don't think this article discusses them sufficiently one way or another. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

In my reading of the debates: FDR worked closely with Jewish leaders on these matters. There is a new generation of activists who denounce the Jewish leaders of the 1940s and their supporters such as FDR. To comply with these 21st century activists FDR would have had to break sharply with the Jewish community in 1940s which he refused to do. Jews were very strong supporters of FDR in 1940s and he never broke with them. 2020 critics seem to say that FDR ShOULD have broken with Jewish leaders and rejected their advice in favor of ideas that were rare in 1940s and became prevalent decades later. The Jewish leaders of 1940s knew a lot about anti-semitism --which was strong in USa at the time--and they never suggested in public or private that FDR was anti-semitic. Rjensen (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The allegations are verifiable to multiple reliable secondary sources, making them noteworthy. There are also sources that appear to contradict those allegations. So a WP:NPOV paragraph is merited, given he was an important figure at the time of the Holocaust and the eve of the creation of Israel. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

On a related matter, certain historians go into great length about why on his watch America did not commence its full scale invasion of Nazi-occupied of Europe until almost five years into WWII. One of the best sources on this is World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West by Laurence Rees. The discomforting thesis, supported by documentation, is that Roosevelt did this to save American lives at the expense of millions of lives in Eastern Europe. Bait and bleed. There's also an accompanying PBS documentary running at 4 hours, possibly available online. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing disclaimer: In a semi-related discussion, I've asked User:SlimVirgin to comment here. I wonder if an RfC would be helpful in attracting more comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Broken link for Harry S Truman under Vice President. Joey Ponziani (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: There's no broken link; it's intentionally not wikilinked as per MOS:OVERLINK. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism.

There is vandalism on this page, can someone with access clean it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:4400:E29:343E:8AE3:BF4C:D568 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for bringing it up. It was vandalism on Template:Franklin D. Roosevelt series, which I've reverted. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

what is up with the begginning?

i do hope you can pardon some of my spelling mistakes, but i simply wanted to come foward and point out the small paragraph between the texts pointing to the disambiguation page and the start of the article. which reads as so; "and i would have gotten away with it had it not been for those medelin kids! ≤≥≈″±≤≥§§§§°Emc2bc Albert D Armer C he b A2. bend F5 Collins Mullins spin A Ch Farm ER stoll a pig 1x4 give me <3 Philidelphia z file.Catholic black top Society Bust!" that's all, hope this gets fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.65.116.51 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for bringing it up. It was vandalism on Template:Franklin D. Roosevelt series, which I've reverted. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

"and i would have gotten away with it had it not been for those medelin kids! ≤≥≈″±≤≥§§§§°Emc2bc Albert D Armer C he b A2. bend F5 Collins Mullins spin A Ch Farm ER stoll a pig 1x4 give me <3 Philidelphia z file.Catholic black top Society Bust!"

This is the first thing written in the article, most likely vandalism, but how did it happen? The page is protected Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for bringing it up. It was vandalism on Template:Franklin D. Roosevelt series, which I've reverted. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: Thanks to SuperHamster for undoing the template vandalism. I've requested that the template receive some protection. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Last sentence of the lead

According to our article scholar surveys rank Lincoln at #1 11/20, FDR #1 6/20 and Washington #1 only 3/20, so how does "He is usually rated by scholars among the nation's greatest presidents, after George Washington and Abraham Lincoln" support this? Perhaps Washington should simply be removed in this sentence. Aza24 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

OLD battleships

All of the battleships at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked were OLD 14-inch gun battleships. At the time, the USA had SIX new 16-inch gun battleships: North Carolina, Washington, South Dakota, Indiana, Alabama and Massachusetts. In addition, four more were under construction: Iowa, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Missouri.Other Choices (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

yes but the new ones were not yet ready for battle and were not part of the fleet. Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, you are partially incorrect, and so am I. First of all, the newest of the older class of battleships, the three ships of the Colorado class (two of which were at Pearl Harbor) did have 16-inch guns. Then there was a "holiday" in battleship construction, after which the NEW type of FAST battleship began to be built. At the time of Pearl Harbor, both of the new North Carolina class battleships were in service. Three of the four South Dakota class battleships had already been launched and would be commissioned a few months later. Other Choices (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC) See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1939)

Furthermore, the newest ships of the OLDER type of slow battleships, the Colorado class, were commissioned in 1923!! There was a huge break in battleship construction of almost 20 years, with the first of the newer faster battleships (with the new standard of three triple turrets of 16-inch guns), -- the North Carolina class --being commissioned just BEFORE World War II, followed quickly by the four battleships of the South Dakota class. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado-class_battleship Other Choices (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"launching" means they were inow afloat n the water. It took many months to prepare a newly launched battleship for battle--only then could it be used in fleet action against Japan. . Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for stating the obvious. Your point seems irrelevant, as these newly-launched ships were now formally part of the navy. My basic point was that all of the battleships at Pearl Harbor in December 1941 were OLDER and slower battleships, all of them at least 18 years old. This word "older" was the single word that was reverted. Do you disagree that these were OLDER battleships? You were obviously unaware that, in addition to the three newer, faster South Dakota class battleships that had been launched by December 7, the preceding two newer, faster North Carolina class battleships had already entered service. Other Choices (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
What is the point of designating them as "older" unless there's some explanation as to the significance of their being older. Were they not considered a first line of defense? Many ships from the twenties were being used as such; and, I assume, the US battleships were being manned as such, with experienced sailors, and properly supplied. Were the "newer" ships purposely being held back for fear of losing them in such an attack? I've never heard of the Pearl Harbor ships labeled as older (of course that would probably diminish the lives lost and the need to avenge the attack). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The article currently uses the silly phrase, "main battleship fleet." There was no such thing. There were three separate battleship divisions at Pearl Harbor (the 1st, 2nd and 4th). They were part of the Pacific Fleet, as opposed to the Asiatic Fleet (based in the Philippines) and the Atlantic Fleet. The newest battleships were in the Atlantic, facing the German navy. The Pacific Fleet wasn't stationed at Pearl Harbor until 1940, when it got moved from California to an "advanced" position. I don't think this can be called a "first line of defense," but rather a deliberate provocation as Roosevelt cut off oil shipments to Japan. The older battleships certainly were properly manned and equipped.
If the article is to use the word "older," a footnote could easily explain that the newer battleships were faster and had triple turrets of 16-inch guns.Other Choices (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"fifth party system" in first paragraph?

The first paragraph says "he built the New Deal Coalition, which realigned American politics into the Fifth Party System and defined modern liberalism" I had never heard of "fifth party system" before. It seems a rather arbitrary concept. I understand "fifth party system" was devised by some political scientists. However, I never hear "fifth party system" in everyday speech. Given the great importance of the first paragraph, as an overall summary, can we agree to something like "he built the New Deal Coalition, which defined modern liberalism"? If someone wants, they can mention "fifth party system" somewhere else in the article, but to me should not be in the intro. But perhaps I am missing something, and would like to get input. AAABBB222 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

Change 'practically refugees' to 'particularly refugees'

In civil rights, internment, and the holocaust section 76.9.37.115 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing out that error. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Delano

Hey could someone put a IPA transcription of Delano? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.216.99 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's /'del ə noʊ/ (or -nəʊ I suppose); I don't think it's necessary to include it in the article since it's pretty much what you would expect (though cf. Delano, California). If we do add it to the article, we should probably update MOSIPA as well since FDR is one of the examples there. 78.28.55.91 (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

22nd Amendment

Should there be a mention of the 22nd Amendment, somewhere in this article?

Gootyam (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Notes section (note h). 78.28.55.91 (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Attribution for "lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees"

Per the article, FDR biographer Jean Edward Smith said in 2007 that Roosevelt "lifted himself from a wheelchair to lift the nation from its knees." I feel this is misattributed. Please refer to Mario Cuomo's speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention, where Cuomo began a sentence as follows: "Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees..."

I definitely feel like it's odd to credit a 2007 biography of FDR with this line rather than a nationally televised speech delivered 23 years earlier. I have no idea whether or not Smith properly attributes this turn of phrase to Mario Cuomo in his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.226.28.48 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Backlash from Congress for pursuing Second Bill of Rights by blending powers

My article on FDR and the backlash from Congress to his blending powers is now published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Policy History. Based on my research, I propose a couple sentences be added to the discussion on the Second Bill of Rights.

Roosevelt pushed legislation to implement his Second Bill of Rights by detailing significant teams of Executive Branch staff to friendly Democrat-controlled Senate Committees. The practice delivered mixed result, but it highlighted for Congress the need to bolster their own committee staff. Congress quickly adopted the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to block the Executive Branch from detailing staff to their committees, while adding staff to Congress's payroll to support it's committees. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://doi.org/10.1017/S089803062000024X ] Billfarley (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

FDR has an honorary degree

In 1939, FDR visited Queen's University to receive an honorary degree. This should be included in some regard.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15525#axzz1TDAI50K3

He had something like 31 honorary degrees (Eleanor had 36.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Hello, I do not wish to edit this page but rather request that it be upgraded. Upgrade means to be transformed into a featured article as opposed to just a good one. LandLubber49 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It would need to go through a successful nomination at WP:Featured article candidates for that to happen. This would require reviews from multiple people who would assess (among other things) the article's prose, sourcing, and media used. See WP:Featured article criteria for more. I personally am not sure it's ready for that yet. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You'll regret it, I assure you. EEng 00:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

Change end term from April 12, 1945 to January 20, 1949 Tyujgo (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Tyujgo Tyujgo (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC) 

I’m here just waiting for someone to change the error for me FDR died on August 1, 1952  Tyujgo (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done that's false; he actually died on April 12, 1945. This has already been well-established. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021 (2)

he died in his office at the White House in 1945 Harry s Truman was the 33 president 47.138.36.205 (talk) 23:35, 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)

FDR's last words slight correction

It currently says that FDR's last words were: "I have a terrific headache." According to https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/the-quiet-final-hours-of-franklin-d-roosevelt his last words were "I have a terrific pain in the back of my head." (I think it was Cary Grant who said "I have a terrific headache.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amenuensis (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt/Archive_10&oldid=1224910818"