Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Please don't insult Greatest Generation

I can deal with one person telling me that FDR "prolonged" the Great Depression. I can deal with it, but not without commenting. FDR did not prolong the Great Depression. Just ask anyone who actually lived through it. What I cannot deal with is what saying that he prolonged it implies. It implies that the American voters who elected him to a history making four terms were stupid, to put it plainly. I know many people who lived during that era and I hold them in high regards. Please don't insult the Greatest Generation. If you do, I'll vote for Hoover! --Hstryin06 00:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Hstryin06

There's a vital difference between stupid and uneducated. Making a bad decision can be done perfectly well by people who are intelligent but are not educated in the field in which they are making their decision. I could be wrong, but I think that economics is a highly counter-intuitive field and *everyone* who lacks at least a basic formal education in the subject will *invariably* make mistakes when making decisions in the field. I too hold that the Federal Government massively increased the impact of the Depression and that the New Deal both slowed recovery and ushered in Big Government, which has plagued us in so many ways ever since that time. However, I do not hold that the generation which voted for this was any more or less stupid or clever than any other generation. I hold that they simply made decisions in a counter-intuitive field where they lacked expertise and, unsurprisingly, erred. Toby Douglass 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Another polemic argument from someone afraid of the facts. I will, yet again, point out that I am not defending FDR's political opponents, who were also misguided. The "Greatest Generation" left future generations with ponzi schemes, debts that still have not been paid, a culture of warring that could not possibly be paid for, and a belief that the government can afford to give you what you cannot earn for yourself. The "Greatest Generation" repeatedly voted for the man who hawked the future to correct the mistakes of the previous misguided administrations, while failing to correct the mistakes of the previous administrations. If such truth is insult, blame the creator of that truth, not the messenger. 01:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize that when FDR was elected the first time, he was considered a conservative. The things he did with the "New Deal" were very conservative measures when compared to what the public would have allowed at the time. To say that he "hawked the future" is quit misguided. This man did things that helped to employee and empower a nation with a 25% unemployment rate (TVA, Forestry Workers, etc). He may have deficit spent, but the results are unarguably a net positive (25% unemployment to 3%). You must also realize that when this man was elected, he had a mandate to do just about the same things that the Bolsheviks were doing in the USSR. So, compared to what he would have been allowed to do, I would say that he was a frugal progressive.

No it doesn't mean the voters were stupid. At least not for the first term, because he ran on the Democratic platform which called for, "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures," "abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating bureaus and eliminating extravagances reductions in bureaucracy," and for a "sound currency to be maintained at all hazards." Toward the end of his campaign he called to "Stop the deficits!" and said, "Before any man enters my cabinet he must give me a twofold pledge: absolute loyalty to the Democratic platform and especially to its economy plank." In a criticism of Hoover, he said, "I accuse the President of being the greatest spending administration in peace time in all American history --one which piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission… We are spending altogether too much money for government services which are neither practical or necessary." So, obviously, he lied. RJII 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he never lied. Look at the National debt. It was going steady all the way up into the War, that was when the National Debt rose. Notice how Roosevelt said "the greatest spending admiistration in peace time". Do you you notice the words "peace time"?

He tried to balance the budget. He was dedicated to the idea. Then he realized it was absolutely impossible. He cut more than any other President in US history, but once he realized America still suffered he abandoned the idea of a balanced budget in favor of investment spending. FDR believed that we must experiment, and if we get it wrong, admit it, then make it better. That is what he did.

The corporate media would have us believe that FDR was a bad president, because corporate power opposes the welfare state. At least FDR's New Deal helped the PEOPLE, unlike Bush's "defense"-industry spending bonanza, which is just corporate welfare that gives technology developed by the state to private corporations to make profits. This benefits only imperialist elites. The costs are thus socialized while the profits are privatized. Free market? I don't think so! Technologies like aeronautics, computers, telecommunications, and the Internet have all been developed WITH STATE MONEY, and then handed over to private power to be sold to the public which paid for it in the first place. To be fair, the main reason the welfare state came into existence is because there was a possibility in the United States of socialist revolution, which would have been utterly intolerable to the wealthy.

Anonymous, You have fallen into the same logic trap that many socialists fall into. You equate free markets with corporatism. A free market has no corporations in it. The corporation is a fictitious entity created by the state to facilitate escape from individual responsibility by business participants. The vast majority of socialist screeds are based on this incorrect assertion. Additionally, the assertion that the state is required for technologies is nothing short of myth. The state in fact hinders technology, and even in an (otherwise) ideal environment, it merely forces taxpayers to invest in a technology which the market has proven does not have the value that government has thrown at it. If this were not the case, government would not have to force people to invest in it by paying the tax which is collect to pay for it. Of course, government wastes most of the money it collects on bureaucracy and bribes, so only a small portion even goes to its intended beneficiary--who may not even be the beneficiary most taxpayers would agree on. BTW, just because someone believes in free markets, doesn't mean they're Republican--I don't even think Republicans really believe in free markets. Some groups favor welfare for corporations. Some groups favor welfare for individuals. Free Market Classical Liberals favor welfare for no one. We see welfare as a matter of voluntary--not government--participation. Finally, the reason the welfare state came into existence is because that is the inevitable result of the democratic process, combined with compulsory taxation. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 00:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is all idle speculation

No-one can know with an encyclopaedic degree of certainty what the course of the Depression would have been in FDR had not been President, or if he had applied different policies, so this is all just idle speculation. All the article can say is what he did do, and what respectable economic historians (not cranks and ideologues) have said about the effects of his policies. Adam 06:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling them "cranks and ideologues" won't quiet those whose facts you do not like. 206.124.31.221 06:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts aren't facts if they are speculation.

(The above unsigned comment was someone else's. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Comments are just a set of characters if they're not signed, and thanks for playing but the "cranks and ideologues" had facts in addition to speculation. No one can know with any certainty what course terrorism would have taken if Bush had not been president, but you can bet waging war in two nations not responsible for 9/11 didn't help. I'm sure many people have facts in relation to that, and they're still facts. In the same way, "ideologues" have facts in relation to the Great Depression and FDR's moves to prolong it and make it worse--and saddle us with a massive government, to boot. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What two nations are we waging war in that had nothing to do with 9-11?

NPOV Dispute

(no making NPOV disputes "go away" by hiding them and everything before them in history)

Objective readers will notice, if they read the article, and the talk page for the article, that the current version of the article could not possibly reflect neutral point of view. This is because two or three authors are repeatedly removing comments added to the article (no edits have been made by this contributor) by those who wish to show alternative points of view to those who would take every opportunity to overstate the flowery bouquet that they believe accompanied the FDR administration. Repeated attempts to balance the article have been obliterated, and a "fan-boy" attitude remains on the talk page for all to see. (signed after the fact) Mark 206.124.31.221 04:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Adam 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also make the point that this is a biographical article about FDR, and not an article about the Depression or the New Deal. It should not be used as a battlefield for conflicting schools of economic thought. I haven't read right through this article for a while, but when I do I will remove any polemical, unsourced or unnecessarily detailed material. Adam 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. Relevant claims have been made to the effect that alternative points of view have been censored. No one "owns" the article. I will remind you that I have not written or edited a word of the article. I am responding out of sympathy for people who are being censored. (signed) Mark 206.124.31.221 04:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Example:

"There was little violence, but most observers considered it remarkable that such an obvious breakdown of the capitalist system had not led to a rapid growth of fascism (as happened in Nazi Germany)."

This is not NPOV. I'll happily accept being in the minority, though I'd dare to say that the majority would not consider it an "obvious breakdown of the capitalist system."

I'm refraining from continuing in detail because, frankly, others have already pointed at bias, and I've already invested far too much time in this. The above is simply an example. Mark 206.124.31.221 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's very POV. What is "the capitalist system"? It certainly wasn't a laisser-faire system as capitalism is commonly defined today ("an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market. -Merriam Webster) What broke down was investor confidence, as a result of too much state intervention in the economy. Investors like free markets. RJII 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence refered to most observers at the time thought, not what you think. In the 1930s most political debate rotated around the question of whether capitalism or socialism was the superior political/economic system. The Depression was seen at the time as a breakdown in the world capitalist system, which had promised everyone (particularly in the US) prosperity and freedom. In Europe masses of people turned to fascism or communism as alternatives to capitalism. What seemed remarkable at the time was that the American electorate, in the depths of the Depression, rejected these alternatives and elected FDR. Adam 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the Supreme Court didn't find the NRA and AAA as unconstitutional, then economic fascism is exactly what we would have. (see When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America) Because, that's obviously what FDR had planned. Sure, there were many that saw it as a "breakdown in the capitalist system" but there were also many others who saw it as due to mercantilism, high taxes, and the Fed. RJII 04:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A) Then the phrasing is sloppy and does not correctly imply that the "obvious" was their POV. B) You better have references—and I don't mean two or three—if you're going to toss around "most observers." They also better not all be from the "same school" or they can't be "most." I'll guarantee you that Ludwig von Mises was not among them—nor, I'll bet—was he in the minority on that aspect of the issue. Mark 206.124.31.221 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, last point:

"As stated, I will go on deleting RJII's edits until he/she stops adding opinionated, trivial and unnecessary material to this article. (Why does this article attract so many cranks?) Adam 08:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"

Your opinion is not necessarily so unbiased as that of the woman holding the scale of justice. The belief that you have the truth and others are opinionated is very dangerous. Mark 206.124.31.221 05:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see this article is being taken over by cranks (again). Crank edits will be ruthlessly reverted. Adam 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, <omitted>. I haven't edited a single word, so stash your paranoia. I'm just showing you for what you are.

SIEG HEIL! 206.124.31.221 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

QED. Adam 05:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're referring to yourself, you're misusing it. You proved my point. 206.124.31.221 06:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

While I am generally reluctant to interfere in discussions of this nature, I would like to point our anonymous contributor toward our articles on Godwin's Law and reductio ad Hitlerum. We do at least try to rise above normal internet debating standards around here. ～J.K. 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I refer the readers to the article on censorship, the use of which provoked the comment. 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact related to NPOV, the NPOV tag was arbitrarily removed, without comment. I replaced it. 04:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is off topic, but related. I like that anyone can edit an article. It allowed me to make positive changes, even though I'm a new user. But it's irritating to see contributions that are vandalism or POV or just plain dumb. I think it might be better if contributors could be rated by other contributors, and the rating would show up along the contributor's name. I'm sure there are potential downsides to this idea, but I think they could probably be worked out. I imagine that wikipedia veterans have already debated this. But I looked through wikipedia and related websites, and could find very little discussion (on "validity" page). And I sent an email to info-en@wikimedia.org web address, and have not heard back. Anybody know where to look on wikipedia for discussion on rating contributors? Dagoldman 15:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of comments to make about this, which I feel are very salient, but I suspect this is not the right place to make them. If someone knows where the appropriate place is, I'll avoid littering this with more general discussion, but let me say you make an interesting point. In short, I will say that the community property aspects of wikipedia, and struggles against it, encourage vandalism and distorted POV. While a system such as you seem to be groping for might work, it would probably only work within the context of mandatory user accounts and the police tactics required to make that work. This has been rejected, so I think we're seeing the extent of what is practicable in that context. I hope I have represented my thought in that regard clearly, tastefully and as completely as appropriate. 206.124.31.221 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is not the right place to discuss, but until I find the right place: I'm interested to see the discussion where contributor rating was rejected, if there was one. I'm not thinking mandatory user accounts. I like the community property aspect of wikipedia. But I don't like vandals and POV and crackpots. If the contributor didn't have a user account, the contributor's rating would be zero or whatever. Their changes could still be accepted, and might be really great. But at least other contributors would know more about what kind of contributor is making the suggestion. All other things being equal, I think the zero-rated or low-rated contributor should have less trust compared with a contributor who has gone to the trouble to set up an account, is willing to be rated by others, and has a track record of following the wikipedia guidelines. Also, I'm only thinking police tactics in terms of self-policing (contributors rating each other). I'm not an expert in this area. But there are a lot of very good websites that encourage users to post feedback on objectionable content, including amazon, craigslist, many others. Why not wikipedia? I think this kind of self-policing already goes on informally some, for contributors familiar with an article. I think building it into the software could help more easily fight against POV and dumb "contributions". To prevent spamming the rating system, maybe it could be set up so that only contributors above a certain threshold rating could cast a rating, and maybe the number of "votes" cast would depend on the rating of the voter. Initially, maybe wikipedia could give administrators high ratings, and then ratings would filter down to other contributors. Whatever is devised could be tested in some way to test it's usefulness. Dagoldman 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I must have been unclear. The community property aspect of wikipedia encourages vandals and POV and "crackpots." If something is owned by "everyone" it is owned by no one. Because of this, some people feel free to destroy it, as they do public property. Others counter this by overcompensating and trying to take ownership, as we have seen here. Unfortunately, the 3% who do not see the middle ground spoil it for the other 97%. As for the rating system—I think it would be accepted in the context of allowing anonymous editors. Whatever system would be added, however, should be a pluralistic citizenship model—that is, all "citizens" (users) get one vote on anything. No one gets "more" equality than others. 206.124.31.221 22:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

rjensen stop vandalizing the article by removing the POV tag when there is obviously an active POV dispute. 206.124.31.221 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no NPOV dispute. Some anonlymous, inarticulate people don't like FDR and use the tag to show their ignorance and hatred to the world. That is close to vandalism and should not be tolerated on Wiki. Rjensen 23:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who refers to someone as "anonlymous, inarticulate" needs time for reflection What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Just because two people think a half dozen people who don't like your slanted point of view and show their displeasure by calling for a NPOV dispute is not license for you to start accusing them of "ignorance and hatred" and vandalize the article by removing the tag despite their comments. If you want this issue to go away, stop trying to veto appeals for NPOV and stop being childish about it. You've been given very clear concerns about the POV of this article by several individuals. Most of them have given up, but I guarantee you that you will have to continue dealing with the fact that the "progressive" slant will not be accepted by everyone. Just because you don't like the NPOV dispute does not mean there "is no POV dispute." What's the frequency, Kenneth? 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting a POV tag on an article is nothing "close to vandalism." Wikipedia articles do have POV problems from time to time. It's a legitimate concern and the tag serves a legitimate purpose. To claim that a person has an "ignorance and hatred of the world" because they disagree with you on the issue is pretty outlandish. It's a personal attack. Maybe you need to reconsider what "should not be tolerated on Wiki." RJII 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As for your claim that NPOV disputes constitute vandalism:

NPOV violations

The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

rjensen, this is for you Wikipedia:POV pushing. Give it a week, at least. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's vandalism to denigrate the article because a person hates FDR's policies. The purpose of talk page is to suggest alternative phrasing and that has not happened because the FDR haters really don't know much about the 1930s and have little to say. It's a Wiki problem--we are open to cranks. Rjensen 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had about enough of you and your sidekick, Adam, calling people who want to present the other side, or simply the ugly truth, "cranks." This article should not be a hagiography. RJII 02:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

RJii seems to dislike FDR. Well everyone to their own. But to trash the article is vandalism. Perhaps rjii will show us a few non POV sentences of his he recommends for the article??? Rjensen 03:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

He's cited NPOV references. I even documented one he cited. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 03:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

One thing this article could use is a Criticism section. That might start it on the way toward being NPOV. RJII 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea 206.124.31.221 03:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for "Private crisis" and "Marriage and children" sections

I'd like to make the article more logically organized by: 1) moving first two paragraphs (concerning Roosevelt's marital crisis and extra-marital affairs) of "Private crisis" into "Marriage and children", and 2) renaming "Private crisis" to "Paralytic illness", since the remaining three paragraphs of "Private crisis" are about his illness. Another advantage of renaming the section is that we could eventually shorten the "Paralytic illness" section and have a separate wikipedia article with more detail on FDR's illness. Dagoldman 06:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. 206.124.31.221 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Adam 07:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Good plan. Rjensen 08:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly Missing Section Entitled "Recovery"

For all the content in this article which has been vociferously defended ad nauseam, there is a section that is mostly missing. The entire section contents are as follows:

Recovery

Roosevelt believed that pump-priming--that is, federal spending--would pull the economy out of the do

If anyone knows what has been removed, it seems this would be an appropriate place for those who are rigidly defending the status quo to focus their energy. 206.124.31.221 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have correctly identified and replaced the missing text. Wtfk 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

GNP growth rates

The GNP growth rates Data from Historical Statistics of the United States (1976) series F3 and F32 compound annual growth real GNP starting in 1933 to

• 1937 = 9.5
• 1941 = 8.1
• 1944 = 8.9 FDR's last full year
• 1945 = 8.0 but he died in April

The rest of the world is covered in The World Economy: Historical Statistics by Angus Maddison (OECD 2003) p 174, which is online at [1] The highest growth I find is Japan from 1950 to 1962 at 8.4%, which is somewhere between FDR 33-44 and FDR 33-45. Was Japan an industrialized country in 1950? well maybe, maybe not. China might do better--Maddison has it at 7.8% since 1990s and it might beat FDR's record. No European country is close, not any other 12 years in American history. Rjensen 04:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, do you realize that the deeper the economic decline the bigger the rebound? The economy is going to revert to the mean. So, extreme growth coming out of an economic abyss is not saying much. Anyway, you haven't checked out Hong Kong have you? --the most laissez-faire economy in the world. From the Hong Kong article: "Growth averaged a strong 8.9% per annum in real terms in the 1970s" RJII 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong was not on the world list of industrialized countries (it's a city, part of China). You mention Hong Kong over a decade--over 10 years FDR had 9.1% from 1933 to 1943, which was better than Hong Kong over 10 years. "recert to mean" I guess is what the FDR haters do on Wiki. Rjensen 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What kind of parsing is this? "It's a city, part of China." It wasn't in the 1970's, and economically, China is leaving it alone--for now. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing? You're selecting 4 years of your choice and averaging them? How about the intervening years? Of course you conveniently leave out the recession year in your calculation. RJII 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Then he'd have to admit the ugly truth that FDR policies actually created a recession. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not included in the lists of countries because of its special status. If we include it FDR did slightly better. As for cherry picking yers: NO I am not doing that. FDR started in 1933, we all agree, and he died in office in 1945. That is the logical beginning and ending, I suggest--what else? But the little table shows the growth from start to end of first term/second term/ third term. He did about as well as Hong Kong in the 1970s, which is the best growth record in world history. Rjensen 05:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A huge problem with that assertion is the context in which the "best growth record in world history" was manufactured. The "growth" in the GNP during the war was a net loss of capital for the materials of war. That's at best an intellectually dishonest application of such a statistic. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A huge problem is the intellectual dishonesty of FDR's critics. If the economy got much better they DENY IT -- and deny the facts. They don't understand economics or statistics. They just want polemics, and ridiculke hard facts from standard sources like Historical Statistics of the US and OECD. Maybe they have their own secret statistics that they are not sharing with us? Rjensen 05:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual dishonesty is calling hawking the future for generations "improving the economy." The statistics you cite are only statistics. They are not the whole picture. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you talk about "intellectual dishonesty" when you're cherry picking the years you include in your calculation? RJII 05:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The New Deal

The section on The New Deal goes on and on. There shouldn't be any more than a stub with scant information on the new deal, because there's already an article for it. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

one of FDR's two greatest achievements was running the New Deal. (the other was ww2). The personal factor is the reason there are so many books on FDR-- and indeed the reason there is a Wiki. Rjensen 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The logic pushed before is that this is not about the New Deal. I agree. It should be removed (or drastically curtailed) since there already is an article for it. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 06:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

a lot of people played a role in New Deal, FDR more than anyone. I will rewrite this to explain what FDR himself did. Rjensen 07:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable approach, as long as it is brief and appropriately abstracted from the details of the (new deal) article--since that article itself attributes the New Deal to FDR. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 07:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored what was there for FDR's first term. That should provide a good basis for summarizing. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Japanese-American Internment

This section is simply too long, given the fact that the article already exists and is referenced. It should be summarized to something less than the extended apology that's there now. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

quite true--why not condense it 75% by focus on FDR. Rjensen 07:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not condense it to a paragraph that summarizes and points to the article? What's the frequency, Kenneth? 07:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has deleted any mention of Japanese internment altogether; please, someone with more familiarity with this article restore it. At the very least, it should be mentioned and the larger article on internment pointed to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.74.130.88 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 May 2006 .

I've added it back. It was blanked without explanation on 06:49, 16 May 2006 (diff). --Muchness 01:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism References

It's quite worthwhile to list references to criticisms of FDR--I even have several more--but it's simply not NPOV to list reams of pro-FDR materials, then slam each of the criticisms. If you want to characterize the criticism, do it objectively as possible, and also characterize the other references. That's a pretty reasonable expectation. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The "criticism" section --readers need to know these are polemical books not scholarly ones and have a very strong POV. That is they argue for/against particular positions and judge FDR on how he handled them. I don't think that's the case with the scholarly books. It is not true that the scholarly books are pro-FDR polemics...those have NOT been included. Rjensen 08:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The "criticism" section indicates that they're not in agreement with FDR, and probably the article, so it already makes the point. To attack the critics with snide comments is clearly not neutral POV. If you must characterize the references, characterize them as a rule, and not specific ones, and keep the comments reasonable. I probably would not have objected--perhaps even noticed--if the comments were not inappropriately harsh. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

the comments are not "inappropriately harsh" or "snide." To say that the Powell book is a "stinging attack on New Deal policies from the right." seems close enough. It is not a "mild attack"!! Barnes called himself a "revisionist"

I don't think the point is unclear. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 09:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I added some more critics & annotated them. Rjensen 10:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Characterization of the other references would improve POV What's the frequency, Kenneth? 10:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Much POV Clean-up Achieved

For the most part, POV-based wording has been altered, where I saw it, to preserve neutrality. I think this makes the article much more objective without removing meaningful content. Some sections have been shortened or will be shortened to reflect the fact that whole articles exist on those topics. The New Deal section, unfortunately, had a good summary, but appears to have been hurt by competing edits. Conscientious improvements of some sections could improve this article, but NNPOV can not and will not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

There are several areas that need fact-checking. I'm sure the sources will be forthcoming or the statements will be made more appropriate. I believe this article is well on its way to being both informative (which it already was) and reasonably neutral (which was its challenge.) Hopefully, we'll be able to remove the POV tag in good conscience soon. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

disputed statistics

the statistics are not disputed-- they come from standard sources. The starting point is when FDR became president in 1933 and the ending point is when he died in 1945. What's "disputed" is the idea that Wiki should inform readers of what the actual growth rates were. The FDR-haters want that information kept secret. Rjensen 11:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We've all heard the quotes about statisticians. Statistics should not be abused. Statements like your last are the type that are fueling the NPOV debate itself. I'll admit to contributing to this myself. Let's try to focus on conciliatory language from here forward, okay? If you hadn't noticed, I've tried to since "hitting the wall" several hours ago. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

agreed. but there is no abuse of statistics in the article. :) Rjensen 12:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're calculating the growth rate by only selecting certain years. Why aren't you including the intervening years, such as 1938 when there was a recession? I would call that "abuse of statistics." RJII 18:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or weren't the statistics updated to include each year? I believe that constitutes an improvement. Of course, GNP and unemployment were increased and reduced dramatically, respectively, by the war at some point in there. In addition to the New Deal programs, this is why taxation and the deficit skyrocketed during that era, and why we're still paying for it. Not to harp, but out of context, it sure looks good. In context, it's a draw, at best (assuming the New Deal and the War were not realistic choices, which is, again, controversial.) Thus, it would probably be good for POV to include the changes in taxation and debt along with those statistics. Of course, there's also the breaking of the gold standard. These are, of course, mostly mentioned in the intro. Maybe they should be collated. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, when I independently looked up "FDR gnp growth rate" on the web, I found these two links at the top, which share a markedly different chart of gnp values:

Timeline of Industrial Growth - Economy In Crisis

Timeline of the Great Depression

There statistics are sourced. Everybody's got statistics. These include other relevant factors, not just GNP. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 02:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the average rate of unemployment throughout his term should be included. RJII 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added the unemployment data as requested by RJII Rjensen 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked for "average unemployment" throughout his term -as in average yearly unemployment. RJII 02:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I see you put a table in. So, yearly average unemployment throughout his term was 12.6%. RJII 02:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For NPOV, why don't you put a chart for the increasing national debt and the increase in spending. RJII 02:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of intro information?

I haven't been following closely the editing war/POV-cleanup that's been going on here, but why exactly has nearly all of the introductory information in this article been deleted? It was hardly POV in listing the major points of Roosevelt's administration (in the same fashion as most other wikipedia pres. biographies), and the small section noting that Roosevelt is typically considered one of the top three American presidents is the widespread consensus of historians. The only real pieces of information left are disputed economic statistics. It seems lacking for such a major figure in world history. - Fearfulsymmetry 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Dagoldman 22:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Which edit was that? (timestamp?) With the exception of the New Deal, because it has an article, and which I restored because someone else has agreed to rewrite a summary version, I myself don't recall removing any whole sections. Otherwise, I made a considerable number of diction changes for improved POV, and tagged a number of things which needed references. Rjensen and I were up very late last night editing, and you may or may not have noticed that there has been some agreement. RJII was also involved, and there were other minor content changes and some (undisputed) vandalism, which we believe we corrected. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 00:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was 3:56 - May 4th - It was from some anonymous ip address. Dagoldman 00:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, it was probably "traditional" vandalism that was overlooked. 3:56 - May 4th in what part of the world, and what IP address? What's the frequency, Kenneth? 00:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I may have just restored the missing section, which did appear to be removed without comment by a vandal. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

weasel words

Rjensen, do you understand "weasel words." You stated, "Detractors note that Roosevelt took six years to restore the damage Hoover had caused in only four years, so that the depression lasted for 10 years." "Detractors note" is known as "weasel words" ..it appears you're making up something that detractors note. If you're going to say "detractors note" this, then you need to be able to source some detractors noting that. RJII 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It was RJii not me who used the line "detractors note". Actually the detractors rarely blame FDR for the 1929-33 downswing--they blame Hoover. FDR gets blamed for one bad year (1938) and gets credit for 11 good years. Rjensen 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did, but not for that statement. I just said that they noted that the depression lasted 10 years --very easy to source. You changed it to make up a complex claim that they "note". I request a source, or it will have to be deleted. RJII 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a bio of FDR. No critic has EVER said FDR was responsible for ten years of depression. It's false. So I fixed the statement. Four years hoover, 6 years FDR. Rjensen 03:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted your statement. You are unable to source any critic of Roosevelt saying that. RJII 03:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is very problematic: "the highest growth rate in the history of any industrial country" and sourced it with: "Angus Maddison, The World Economy: Historical Statistics (OECD 2003)" Rjensen, you're doing "original research." That source does not make such a claim. You really need to find a source that makes this claim, otherwise it will have to be deleted. RJII 05:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Serb terrorist attacks FDR

Srdja Trifkovic is a well-known Serbian terrorist -- see the Wiki article -- he was the official spokesperson for the Bosnian Serbs defending their atrocities. (He was not himself engaged in killing people). He's not an historian of the US -- so why would anyone use him as an authority on FDR???? It makes the article look ridiculous. How about adding some Nazi commentators from 1944 on what they thought of FDR? Rjensen 07:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See the Wiki article?? You should know better than to trust Wikipedia. I request a credible source for your claim. All I can see is that he was called as an expert witness in the defense of Milosevic. Engaging in ad hominem against him in the article is out of line. He's a professional historian. RJII 07:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the article on Srdja Trifkovic and saw a lot more then him being called as an expert witness. I agree with "Why would anyone use him as an authority on FDR???" This Trifkovic guy is the equivalent of a Serb Holocaust denier. Two sentences from the wikipedia article: He claims that the Bosnian Serb rape camps were "entirely fictitious". He insists that the massacre of several thousand Muslims in Srebrenica was as a "stage-managed massacre" and "self-inflicted", and a "long-debunked myth". Rjensen's criticism was not "ad hominem". Maybe "ad crackpot". Trifkovic makes outrageous claims, and has no particular authority on FDR. I vote for striking the paragraph with Trifkovic's "opinions". Dagoldman 08:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That article looks like a bunch of made-up stuff to me. It's not sourced. Obviously, he's not concerned about being politically correct. Hence, his criticism of FDR. But, not being politically correct and being controversial hardly excludes him as a credible source. He's published and a PhD historian --that's certainly a credible source according to Wikipedia policy. Criticism against FDR is itself politically incorrect. It's a no-no among the establishment not to regard him as a patron saint. RJII 08:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh?!? The Trifkovic article is extensively sourced, related to Trifkovic's outrageous claims. Just go to the "Controversial claims" section and click on links 6, 8, 9, 10, and others. And your quote related to Trifkovic being "a man of extraordinary intellectual courage" (whatever that implies) is one of the few points that is not sourced!! By the way, how do you know if Trifkovic is concerned about being politically correct? And just who is the "establishment"? And what gives you the right to define what is politically correct, since your arguments and reasoning are so obviously flawed? You're hoisted on your own petard. Dagoldman 16:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it's not politically correct to disagree that FDR was a "great president" since the vast majority of people are convinced he was a "great president." Anyone who says otherwise is viciously attacked. By the way, you're mistaken that the claim that Trifkovic was called a "man of extraordinary intellectual courage" is not sourced. The links is there. RJII 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So now you've defined "politically correct" to mean "whatever the vast majority believes". What's your source? Look at the wikipedia article on political correctness. Look in a dictionary. Your being criticized has nothing to do with political correctness. It's because of the wild, unsubstantiated claims you're making. Of course, you have the right to define words however you want, but that kind of excludes you from participating in a rational conversation with others. You're right about one thing. Someone did call Trifkovic "a man of extraordinary intellectual courage". You were partly at fault because you failed to cite in your original sloppy edit - [2] And it doesn't change the fact that Trifkovic makes outrageous, "big lie" claims, and is not an authority on FDR. Dagoldman 03:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And what "wild unsubstantiated claims" do you accuse me of making? RJII 03:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That Trifkovic is a reliable or credible source of opinion related to FDR. That the wikipedia article on Trifkovic is a bunch of made-up stuff. That the wikipedia article on Trifkovic is not sourced. Those are the ones I'm aware of, anyway. I have not followed the other discussion threads you've been submitting. Dagoldman 06:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what is that new graph supposed to mean? It means nothing unless you put it in context. You need to show more than the years during which he was president. All one can tell in that is that GNP increased. It's not informative at all. And, you really need to put in some data about the balooning of the national debt. It's really POV to only put in things that look good without showing the cost of what happened. RJII 07:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll now add the debt/gnp graph rjii asked for. Rjensen 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. And, how about an employment chart with that? RJII 08:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

same old story--emplyment rose from 24 million on nonfarm payrolls 1933 to 32 million in 1940. Rjensen 08:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. LOL. It didn't start soaring until 1941 with the war. The truth should be shown in a graph for all to see. RJII 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A TEN YEAR depression is absolutely uncalled for. That can only happen because someone is interefering with the free market. That did not have to happen. RJII 09:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Srdja Trifkovic is junk history--the guy never studied US history and is not quoted by or respected by any scholar of the New Deal period. It's embarrassing to Wiki to have his false statements (about FDR bribing people, for example.) Rjensen 02:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. He has indeed been cited by scholars. Give me a few minutes and I'll show that. And, it's really POV of you to delete him. He is published and is a professional degreed historian. RJII 02:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here he is, cited right here (and that same essay as a matter of fact): [3] What do you have to say to that? Are you going to call the guy who cites him a "crank" now or something like that? RJII 02:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Four sentences were quoted by a non-historian in an op-ed piece? that's it???? sorry that's not good enough for Wiki. Think of all the junk that would be allowed by that criterion. Let's find some secondary source, some refereed journal, some well-reviewed book. Actually all there is is a couple paragraphs written by a specialist on Yugoslavia who never pretended to study American history. Fact is FDR and the Brains Trust never talked about Mussolini. (The closest you get: Sec Perkins said that Hugh Johnson in 1934 was talking about Mussolini. She complained to FDR who immediately fired Johnson.) Rjensen 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A criticism is going to be an op-ed. The president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob G. Hornberger [4] is citing a paper from a professional historian who published the paper in Chronicles. That's definitely sufficient for Wikipedia standards. I'm putting it back in. RJII 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Trifkovic is the foreign editor of Chronicles and he published his own essay there. That is not peer review--it's more like a paper blog :) Then a lawyer quoted a few sentences in his own paper blog. That would not be accepted by a supermarket tabloid, let alone Wiki. Rjensen 02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

new data

ten year depression -- lots of countries had one in 1930s. Blame Hoover for starting it and credit FDR for ending it.

Employed workers
		millions
1929	1929	31.3
1930	1930	29.4
1931	1931	26.6
1932	1932	23.6
1933	1933	23.7
1934	1934	26.0
1935	1935	27.1
1936	1936	29.1
1937	1937	31.0
1938	1938	29.2
1939	1939	30.6
1940	1940	32.4
1941	1941	36.6
1942	1942	40.1
1943	1943	42.5
1944	1944	41.9
1945	1945	40.4
1946	1946	41.7

Source: Historical Stats US series D127; nonfarm payrolls; excludes farmers, military, and relief workers Rjensen 09:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So, both with that and the general unemployment number you can see that employment problems didn't get fixed until the war started. Roosevelt's policy obviously didn't do anything to help employment. It even got worse 4 or 5 years after he was elected when his policies brought on a recession. And, yes, Hoover is largely responsible for contributing to starting it with his tax increased and protectionism. But, Roosevelt prolonged it with his interventionism and even more tax increases. A free economy is not going to have a prolonged depression like that --resources are going to get reallocated through market forces and it's going to move on. RJII 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"A free economy is not going to have a prolonged depression like that" says who? That's straight POV, I'm afraid. Zero evidence for it. (the usual response is "there have never been any truly free economies") Rjensen 01:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether there's evidence for it. The opinion is sourceable from respected economists. RJII 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, you made this statement in the article: "Defenders of Roosevelt point out that he presided over 10.9% growth in his first term--by far the highest growth rate in American history--and one of the highest in world history for any industrial nation, and they challenge the critics for any evidence that the growth rate could have been made even higher." with this source attached: "Angus Maddison. The World Economy: Historical Statistics (2003) p. 260" I request a quote from that saying such a thing. Do you realize that you are not allowed to interpret data? "it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources RJII 03:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is RJii claiming he does not interpret data? The Wiki rule is that we can't do original research. I certainly did not--Maddison did all the original research. I relied on his enormous painstaking work, as does everyone writing about economic growth. It is NOT true that Wiki consists of quotes from the sources strung together. Nonsense! It is a narrative based on solid reliable secondary sources that have to be cited. Is it "original research" to say that 11 is higher than 10? Does Wiki demand a quotations that say "Mathematicians have discovered that 10.9% is higher that 9.3%" and "Historians report that 1945 is 12 years later than 1933." Rjensen 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. You don't have a source for your claim that Roosevelt presided over the "highest growth rate in American history--and one of the highest in world history for any industrial nation." It's your original research. Your interpreration of the data. That's not allowed on Wikipedia. RJII 03:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's been a 'hands off' policy by historians regarding criticism of FDR. It's hard, however to mount a critique of his economic policy unless you have an viable alternative. And by all accounts, there weren't any available between 1933-37. High unemployment, falling productivity and the like seemed to be invulnerable to the ministrations of traditional capitalism. The traditional structures were failing. The country also seemed to be running out of time and patience, so the traditional theory which explains economic catastrophe as the normal event which patiently needs to be waited out just wasn't going to work. I don't think FDR was engaging in 'economic fascism' when he created the FDIC, the SEC and other agencies to monitor economic activity. It would seem silly to shoot himself in the foot, so to speak by creating the very agencies that could potentially derail his complete control of the economy, if that were his aim. I think he had a pretty good idea of how far he could move the nation away from its traditonal economic comfort zone...his use of 'Keynesian Light' economics was about all he could hope for. Of course, those who preferred laissez-faire economics would probably wring their hands, paint a beard on FDR's portrtait and try to pass him of as Marx's long lost brother. John Morello

William Hoar = John Birch Society

William Hoar is affiliated with the John Birch society, which publishes all his material. Western islands press is their imprint and "the New American" magazine. This is not solid secondary scholarship. Citing this makes Wiki look pretty foolish. Rjensen 04:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a credible source by Wikipedia standards. It's published by a prolific author. What does the John Birch Society have to do with anything? So what if you don't like the John Birch Society? Do not delete it. Stop deleting sources. RJII 04:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not use self-published stuff. Wiki sources = peer reviewed articles in journals. ANYONE can self-publish ANYTHING and that is what we have to screen out. If Hoar leads to a Hoover quote, great, use the Hoover quote which carries real weight. Rjensen 04:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not self-published. RJII 04:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

it is not peer-reviewed Hoar says anything he wants--it's the same quality as the average talk radio show. High quality is the goal here. Rjensen 05:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a published source. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that a source be peer-reviewed. It's preferable, sure, but it's not required. RJII 05:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is: editors have to gauge quality. Rjensen 05:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there's not. Merely being published is not considered "peer review." Wikipedia allows published sourced that are not "peer reviewed." If you want to call editors gauging quality as "peer review," fine. Then, the source is peer reviewed because it was published. RJII 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You can find crackpots and extremists with widely diverging hyper-positive and hyper-negative views on FDR (and many other politicians). Is it the purpose of wikipedia (or any similar article) to detail these extreme positions? I don't think so, because it doesn't represent any kind of consensus or reasonable view. Just listing the extreme positions doesn't tell us much. I would propose listing the positive and negative critical conclusions reached by major historians who have thoughtfully researched and written about FDR, in scholarly sources referenced at the end of the article. There is no evidence for some kind of conspiracy among historians to paint FDR in a positive or negative light. Dagoldman 06:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dagoldman is exactly right. Wiki is an encyclodeia designed to present the consensus of scholars and specialists. If some scholars have a variant minority view we not it but do not pay great attention, (says Wiki). Cranks who are not scholars and have not sone serious research can be ignored. People who want their views can find them on Google. We especially must not use unscholarly cranks if the only purpose is to add POV to the article. Let's please minimize the POV by keeping to consensus scholarship. Note that most of the cranks are conspiracy theorists, especially regarding FDR helping Japan attack Pearl Harbor. Rjensen 04:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The person does not have to be a scholar in order for his opinion on Roosevelt to be recorded here. For example, Hoover did not write any "scholarly" papers condemening Roosevelt as bringing fascist economics to the US. But, that was his claim. H.L. Mencken criticized Roosevelt, but did not write "scholarly" criticisms. There is no requirement that this kind of thing come from "scholarly" papers. RJII 04:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

editors are NOT allowed to inject POV into the articles either by stating their own opinions or finding some unknown self-published blogger who the editor agrees with. NO POV is the rule for Wiki and we have to keep to it. Mencken was one of the most important commentators of the 1920s and 1930s and his opinions deserve notice. Hoar is totally unknown and is quoted ONLY because he expresses the POV views of one editor. Rjensen 04:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that non-notable opinions shouldnt be noted, if they're not scholarly. But, I don't agree with you that Hoar is not notable. I think Hoar is pretty well known. RJII 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoard is a staff writer for the John Birsh Society which is his own publisher. Does he have a college degree? Who knows. Do scholars and journalists quote him with respect? Does he appear on Fox TV or give interviews or lectures or write for mainstream magazines like National Review. no. Nobody knows anything about his credentials. He is quoted ONLY because his opinions on FDR coincide with the POV of one editor. Rjensen 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can turn that right around and say the only reason his inclusion is being opposed is because his POV conflicts with the POV of one or two of the editors. RJII 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Is there any reason the NPOV tag is still up or does everyone think this article is sufficiently neutral now, aside from the minor details? --Fearfulsymmetry 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disgusted

I just came across this article, and I am thoroughly disgusted with the transparent, partisan bickering going on here. So little of this article is genuine factual information and so much of it exists solely to push various agendas - and it doesn't take very long for it to get started. Why are economic figured addressed in thr second paragraph of the article? How is this relevant to the header data? Give me a break. Why is there so much speculation about his romantic life? You people should be ashamed of yourselves. It's people like you that are rendering Wikipedia a useless entity.

But why bother even complain? I'm sure you'll just shrug your shoulders and say "But it's the fault of those OTHER guys with that OTHER view!!!" No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.111.116 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 May 2006.

I'm also confused as to why economic figures are the most prominent portion of the intro paragraph. It seems inappropriate considering the number of other accomplishments Roosevelt has had. -Fearfulsymmetry 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

dealing with the ECONOMIC depression was one of FDR's two great policy challenges (the other was ww2), so yed his economic record is important. Depression = lower GDP Some people seem to think he prolonged the depression, but they don't look at the GNP data. Rjensen 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It was an unemployment depression. What good is GNP if 17% are unemployed throughout the New Deal? RJII 05:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What formula are you using to arrive at your " 8.5% compound annual growth of GDP" figure? RJII 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with its importance or its accuracy, I just feel that the way the intro is currently, it becomes the center of the section. I feel information in other areas should be given as much consideration. I don't know, I'm tired. Blah. -Fearfulsymmetry 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

the 8.5% rate comes directly from Historical Statistcis of the US published by the Dept of Commerce in 1976 p 226. It is the average annual compound growth rate of real GNP. (it is calculated to the month of his death in April 1945). Rjensen 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Something is not right. I don't have the book so I can't verify what you're saying. It looks like to me that you're doing some faulty calculations. To get the rate of growth in GNP, you take the difference between the GNP for two years and divide that by the GNP for the first year. What are the GNP for each year? RJII 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Besides, that sounds like a primary source, thus Original Research, a no-no. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

the Dept of Commerce did the original research and printed the numbers and Wiki just reports it. (To get the results you have to use logs, I believe) The GNP data: 1933 = $141.5 billion (1958 dollars) 1945 = $355.2 Hist Stats page 224 Rjensen 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying you did no calculations? RJII 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro used to read well and reflected the consensus view of FDR. Now, with the percentages, the intro reads poorly. Could we revert to a previous version without the percentages? Dagoldman 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it has valuable information of the sort people want to know. Rjensen 10:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, did you make any calculations to come up with your 8.5% number? RJII 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

my only calculation was to interpolate between 1944 and 1945 ending points to take his death into account. To get really precise it's necessary to use monthly or quarterly data, which is probably published somewhere in a Statistical Abstract of US in late 1940s. (the numbers are from the Dept of Commerce, and I think they used natural logs: from year x to year y, their rate of growth formula, I believe is [ln(GNP:Y) - ln(GNP:X)]/(y-x) This gives lower rates. Rjensen 17:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

found it: Statistical abstract for every year is at [5] Rjensen 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Stats abstract has only annual data. Rjensen 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree (good) statistics are valuable information. I just don't think they belong in introduction. An intro needs more general statements. FDR certainly had his faults, but I think the clear consensus is that he was a great president and leader, and that's what the intro should say. He overcame crippling disability. His policies got us through the depression, although it took the mobilization for a world war to end the depression. The idea that FDR was "fascist" or "comparable to Mussolini" is just polemics and unsubstantiated POV. FDR went through the constitutional process, despite the fact that not a few in the US wanted a dictator. Good God, he was elected president four times! Dagoldman 19:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

They might have had a dictator if the Supreme Court didn't overturn his illegal usurpation of legislative authority. Fascism was sweeping the world. Centralized control was the all the rage --a cure to the supposed chaos and unpredictability of the free market and individual decision. What prevented fascism here was a Constitution that adequately enforces separation of powers. RJII 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled against Roosevelt. And yes, fascism was sweeping the world. But what prevented fascism was that FDR respected the Supreme Court, and worked within the constitutional system. And even FDR's worst proposals were not anything like fascism. Those saying otherwise are just engaging in polemics, and misuing words to suit their ends. It's just as easy to say that FDR was "communist" as to say that we was "fascist", and means just as little. If you want to make an argument about greater centralized control, fine. But stop misusing words like "fascism". You can't just redefine words to suit your fancy. Dagoldman 21:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt respected the Supreme Court? Are you kidding me? If I'm not mistaken he said something like "those nine old men aren't going to stop any more of my damned programs" and tried to pack the court. He even had a speech prepared announcing his refusal to obey the Supreme Court in the even tha they ruled that bondholders had a right to demand gold. RJII 16:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what "speech prepared" you're referring to. Yes, FDR tried to pack the court, and was stopped. But did he ever ignore the court's rulings? I don't think so. In that sense, he did respect the court. And that's why the argument that FDR was "fascist" is just a "big lie" and polemics, which you have not countered. Dagoldman 01:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I've never argued that FDR was a fascist. The fascism refers to the New Deal. It was very similar to Mussolini's economic system --especially the NRA. But, fortunately it was found unconstitional. If it wasn't, we'd have a fascist-like economic system today instead of a relatively laissez-faire capitalist one. Read this for more information: [6] RJII 02:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Censorship (a little ironic isn't it?)

Why is Rjensen deleting this: "On December 19, 1941 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Office of Censorship and conferred on its director the power to censor international communications in "his absolute discretion." Byron Price was selected as the Director of Censorship. "Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details." [7] That's certainly a notable thing, that was the direct result of FDR issuing an executive order. RJII 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

because FDR had a minimal role. This of course is standard procedure in wartime. (Lincoln and Wilson did it). It does not belong in a biography. Rjensen 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's things way more trivial than that in this article. I think it's significant and notable. He hired 14,462 civilians to spy on all cable and radio communications and open private mail coming in and going out of the US. Can you imagine if Bush did that? This is very notable. RJII 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• no, but what is ironic, is that Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have to have their articles read like they were copy/pasted from from their own campaign comercials, and democrats... not so much, must be the blatent left wing bias in wikipedia that I keep hearing so much about on all these talk pages--152.163.100.65 02:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a polemic side-track to the real issue. If you don't like those articles, contribute to THEM. A lot of work was put into correcting the propaganda this article was overloaded with. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Go put in a Criticism section. That always helps with the POV problem. RJII 04:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This particular Executive Order would only be worth editing in if we had an "Notable Executive Orders Signed" section in this article. Was the Japanese American internment the result of an Executive Order? I think that a few of the WWII era ones were biggies. Where can we find a list? Hdtopo 05:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

FDR signed over 10,000 exec orders. the most famous was Executive Order 9066, dated February 19, 1942 re Japanese internment camps. Googling "Roosevelt Executive Order" gives 7 million hits. Rjensen 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Questions

• According to Eleanor Roosevelt "Eleanor and Franklin were fifth cousins, once removed". Is this correct? why is it not in this article too? Hdtopo 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A fifth cousin isn't a close relationship; it means two people share a great-great-great-great-grandparent. The number of Gs in the title [grandparent = 1 G, great-great-grandparent = 3 Gs] tells you the number of the cousin. You have 64 GGGGGparents, so there's potential for thousands of fifth cousins.

"Once removed" means two people are a different number of generations from that common ancestor. Someone with whom I share a grandparent as the closest common ancestor is my first cousin. The child of my first cousin is my first cousin once removed: we have Grandpa Angus in common, but we are off ("removed") by one generation relative to Angus (two generations back for me, three for the kid).

My understanding is that President Theodore Roosevelt was Franklin's fifth cousin; Eleanor was Theodore's niece, thus, Franklin's fifth cousin once removed.

To be technical, she was his fifth cousin once removed in the descendancy (meaning, she was in a "lower" generation than him, further removed from the common ancestor); for her, he was a fifth cousin once removed in the ascendancy (he was one generation closer to the common ancestor). — OtherDave 01:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding this: The Encyclopædia Britannica, for example, says that "by careful exercises and treatments at Warm Springs he gradually recovered". Are we sure that's what the EB says? I think we need a citation. What year EB says that? Hdtopo 22:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman praised work relief

Friedman the economist was employed by the WPA, and in early 1940s, as his autobiography explains, he was a Keynesian and a spokesman for the Treasury department, advocating new taxes. He helped invent pay-as-you-go taxes through paycheck withholding. After about 1950 he started criticizing the New Deal programs, esp AAA (farm) and NRA. In his memoirs (1998) he praises the work relief programs as good policy: p 59 "we regarded many early New Deal measures as appropriate responses to the critical situation" and mentions WPA, PWA and CCC. There is an informal interview (made when he was about 90) that has one sentence that criticizes the entire New Deal. Friedman wrote upwards of 1000 articles and books, and those should be used not an alleged interview that he did not have a chance to revise. Rjensen 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It says "we REGARDED many early New Deal measures as appropriate responses to the critical situation." He explains his support of the WPA when he was "very young and unsophisticated" in an interview on PBS, "I must confess that probably I was thinking at that time more about my own interests and position than I was about these broader issues." [8] He says that ""while the New Deal was not good for the country in many ways, it was very good for me, because I was able to get a job in Washington at the National Resources Committee in Washington." [9] RJII 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

the young and unsophisticated genius who revolutionized modern economics and repeatedly testified to Congress on behalf of the New Deal? I cannot find any explicit criticism of his of the relief programs. He attacks mostly NRA, AAA and labor laws. Rjensen 17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea that he "praised" it is absurd. The citation Rjensen repeatedly digs up is out of the context of a work in which he discusses the fact that they were lucky to get work as economists in those days--NOT that it was something he approved of. Try reading the whole chapter you're citing and you may begin to understand the context. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 04:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

TOTAL POV

The economy under Roosevelt SUCKED! fastest growth rates? Umm, thank you WW2. The unemployment rate was always high under roosevelt and the job gains came from WW2 as well. Hitler had almost as much to do with it then roosevelt! The Economy under FDR in the 1930's was in a depression! According to the article you would think it was peace and plenty!

And the debt was at a record under Roosevelt, it didn't level off at all. It hit 110% of GDP under FDR and the deficit was the REAL LARGEST in history. Here is a link. You can do the math. Trying to excuse roosevelt by talking about Hoover is a joke and shows bias! How can one say that the debt leveled off?

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/launchpad/5577/philo/fedbgt.htm

Romanyankee(24.75.194.50 17:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Life (and economics) are far more complicated than you think. You might want to read a bit more on the period of time we are talking about from a historical, political, economic and martial standpoint.

Re Hoover, a good man but out of his element, you might want to see this link and check out GDP from 1929 to 1932/33 [10]

The monetary policies, dustbowl, trade tariff, farm to city migration and economic changes which led to the Great Depression were not FDR's fault. While he did over-reach in his attempts to pack the USSC, by and large his leadership was a benefit to USA. Hdtopo 23:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a good leader is not all there is to being a good president. It depends on what the president is leading the nation into. He led the nation into an economic program that worsened and prolonged the Depression. [11] He pursued programs to raise prices and wages and create government jobs, but of course higher prices means people have to pay more money for the things they need, and forced higher wages meant that it was more expensive to hire people (instituting or raising a minimum wage during a recession or depression defies economic rationality). And, he created tons of government jobs to make up for the job growth that was being prevented by the New Deal itself. The result was 17.2% unemployment throughout the New Deal --government cannot create more jobs than the private sector by taking wealth out of the private sector. It wasn't until the policies were abandoned that jobs recovery began. But, somehow a myth has persisted that his destructive policies were good for the economy. If anything, that he was able to convince people that they were is a testament to his "leadership." RJII 00:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, the analysis regarding "good" or "bad" in reference to FDR's economic policies comes down to which side of the political spectrum one is on -- from a "Supply-side" viewpoint they were bad, from a Keynesian viewpoint they were good. Additionally, given the global nature of the depression and the situation in Europe and the Far East trying to establish the impact of FDR's policies and whether other policies may have worked better is a fool's errand -- there are far too many variables to consider. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The only way there can be any give and take on the "good" or "bad" discussion is if you think there's actually merit to the idea that putting the nation into hawk and creating the entitlement society that's now the albatross around the neck of endless generations is a "good" thing. Reality-oriented people just don't see that. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 04:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

While I tend to be on the conservative side of the perspective, my dad, who lived thru the Great Depression summed FDR up once when he said simply, "When there was no hope, he gave us hope." OK, my dad was a card-carrying UMW union man and a lifelong democrat, but even though we can see thru some of FDR's policies for what they were, tried to be, how they sometimes failed, were struck down by the courts, and even contributed to the modern so-called "welfare state," the whole point of national leadership is just what my dad said he saw, to sometimes give the people some hope. Now how much of that was a con game is open to debate as I can see the battle raging to and fro here. Its hard to understand just how "depressed" the average joe was by 1933. Was Hoover giving anyone hope? He had pretty much despaired of doing anything. However, that a lot of the so called FDR recovery was plainly the effect of war preprations. There are so many positives and negatives about the man and his times, his life and personality, his private vs. public persona. Jack Kennedy was like that too.

I talked to an old timer in person not too long ago. He grew up in the depression and thought FDR did a great job too. He told me he saw potatoes being burned by farmers, and was outraged. But, he didn't know that that was part of the New Deal --FDR has food destroyed in order to make food more expensive to benefit farmers, while taxing the public to pay the farmers with subsidies to make up for the destroyed crops. Of course that was at the expense of the poor who had to pay more for food (and with less money to spend because of higher taxes). He thought it was "greedy capitalists" doing it on their own initiative. I tried to explain to him that it was part of FDR's program, but it didn't seem to sink in. I don't think people at the time realized what was going on --they just took it hook, line, and sinker that hard times were being caused by "greedy capitalists" and FDR saved the day. And, the myth persists. RJII 06:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms - POV

It's POV to list criticisms of FDR without listing defences to those criticisms. PMA 09:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So why is it not POV to list criticisms on the George W Bush article without listing defences, mein commissar? 88.105.248.112 18:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Intro

I'd just like to say that the introduction as it now stands is very well done in my opinion. Very succinct and informative. Good job to whoever did it. --Fearfulsymmetry 03:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that was me [small bow]. I'd contributed nothing to this article until a couple days ago when it come up for FA status, and the article itself impresses me, as it has better, more dynamic writing than most articles. I think the only thing holding it back at this point is the need for more citations; myself and another user (RJIII) have each added mulitple citations over the last couple of days, and I think a couple other users have added one, and information that looked questionable has been deleted, but if any of the original authors can still track what their primary sources were in writing, it would be great to have many more. Sam 12:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

On the new tag, the third tag added in the last few days:

(1) Add an unemployment chart if you'd like. I'll be happy to come up with an additional paragraph or two on unemployment. Is there another article, for example on the Great Depression, that you want to link to more heavily for discussion of the subject?

(2) The statement that the charts do not include surrounding years is false, since the debt chart goes from 1923 to 1950. The GDP chart shows only the FDR pre-war years, apparently based on prior issues with including the war years as not comparable. If anyone wants to have additional years, add them. I have pointed to the data during the peer review, and the charts themselves are well cited. Are there other pages we should link to, such as pages on national debt or gdp generally?

Let's improve this thing, not just tag it to death.

Sam 16:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a "see also" at the top and a link (through the word "unemployment") to other charts on Wikipedia that cover unemployment during FDR's term, and to a fuller discussion of unemployment during the New Deal. I haven't found a chart that covers out years as well, but please feel free to look or to amend or incorporate the charts (if amending, I'd suggest rearranging the charts and keeping them small so they look good). Sam 17:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Some other possibilities from the Great Depression in the United States page(and I'll at least add a link for the tables junkies out there): there's a chart showing GDP for 1929 through 1941, which would extend the GDP chart five years back, and a table showing unemloyment from 1933 on using two measures (one including people on relief, one not):

GDP in United States Jan 1929 to Jan 1941

Unemployment
% labor force	Lebergott	Darby
1933	24.9	20.6
1934	21.7	16.0
1935	20.1	14.2
1936	16.9	9.9
1937	14.3	9.1
1938	19.0	12.5
1939	17.2	11.3
1940	14.6	9.5
1941	9.9	8.0
1942	4.7	4.7
1943	1.9	1.9
1944	1.2	1.2
1945	1.9	1.9

Derby counts WPA workers as employed; Lebergott as unemployed source: Historical Statistics US (1976) series D-86; Smiley 1983

Should we replace the debt table with unemployment? I'm neutral as to what is more meaningful myself. If someone wants to get me the data from the cited source for 1929-33, looking at the wiki code, it wouldn't be hard to add, though I've not done it before. Sam 18:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a Depression going on. Certainly the charts should show that. The GDP growth chart gives the impression that things were great. If you look at GDP itself, it was below trend --so the GDP growth chart is misleading. And, a huge part of the Depression was the massive unemployment --throughout FDR's term --which didn't alleviate until the War. Certainly there should be a chart showing that. RJII 18:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The unemployment chart is from elsewhere on Wikipedia, it wasn't hard to find. I found it in response to your complaint, but haven't edited it. I, personally, would be happy to incorporate it in lieu of the debt chart in the text, and you can edit it to eliminate Darby or to annotate Darby as you see fit. I think it is more meaningful than the debt chart, though there are monetarists out there who would disagree.

The GNP chart showing the full depression cycle is what you asked for. Why isn't it meaningful? This is one of the statistics most relied on by economic historians, and you can suggest whatever interpretations of the data you like.

Sam 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me just say I, and I'm sure others, appreciate your efforts in verifying, sourcing, and fixing information in the article. About the GNP chart, it doesn't show the years in context. Sure, GDP was up from 1929, but still GDP is below the longer term trend --in other words there was still in a Depression going on. You can't see that from the chart --it looks like the depression is over and GDP is up to normal or even at a greater level than one would expect it. RJII 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, that's fine. Never mind. It would be good to have a trendline in there, but that's asking to much. RJII 19:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Take a look at what I've done - there is now an unemployment chart in the body and a GDP chart that covers 1929 through 1941 rather than just 1933 through 1941. The old debt chart is in the footnotes. It doesn't look as sharp, but we need a table wizard who can get the table to go side by side with text to make it work right. If you find a GDP chart that shows the trend for a broader period, let me know. It could be meaningful. I looked quickly and haven't found anything. Best, Sam 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, are you ready to move from object to neutral or support with these changes? If not, what do you think still needs work (and I know the cites do)? Sam 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll take the tag off. Hopefully someone that knows how to make a visual chart for employment will do so eventually. RJII 19:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - but also, are you ready to support this as a featured article? I know it needs more cites, but what else is necessary? We're down to just you and one other person objecting to featured article status, and the other person is primarily focused on citations. I think this would be a very good f/a. Best, Sam 20:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, for what you may be trying to get at, e.g., the depth of the depression, the new GDP chart does show that when looked at right. A common question for a recession or a depression is, "when I am back where I used to be", or, in this context, when did GDP return to 1929 levels? The answer is, not until 1936, fully 7 years after the crash. So the growth is steep, but the dive from 1929 to 1931/32 was just as steep. Sam 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

Yea! FDR's a featured article. I've only been working on this article for a few days, and I have to say everyone who has worked on it has done a great job. Note that several daughter articles were split off in the last few days, including:

• Criticism of FDR
• Franklin D. Roosevelt's record on civil rights
• Franklin D. Roosevelt's terms as Governor of New York
• Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralysis

In addition, inforamtion was moved to Roosevelt family.

Those articles are generally not up to the same standard as this one, so, my thought is, the places most in need of improvement right now are those articles. (This article could still use more citations, as well).

Sam 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done and thanks to everyone for improving it during FAC so much :) RN 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New Intro

On the new intro, I don't like replacing the "one of the big three" language with the "leader and financier of the Allies". The USSR certainly wasn't "following" us during the War -- they lost many more people, they operated quite independent, including in the Resistance movements in the Balkans and France (indeed, there were places where the British allied and Russian allied resistance movements were practicaly at war with each other, such as Greece), and they made their own decisions (they were not part of the Combined Chief of Staffs and coordinated forces much differently than the British). So it is very hard to see Roosevelt as "leading" the USSR in much of anything. The British relationship is more complex, and was fairly dynamic over the course of the war. But, I think the old Big 3 language was much more accurate - and, sets up the discussion to transition to Yalta and the Cold War.

My thoughts, for what it is worth. Sam 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

USA (and therefore FDR) was the dominant leader among the Allies as a whole-- dominating Britain, China, France, Australia, etc. USSR was not dominated by USA , but it did follow FDR's lead on most major issues (such as 1) unconditional surrender; 2) policy re postwar Germany; 30 policy re postwar UN; 4) China policy; 5) war with Japan). No doubts that US financed the war and provided much of Soviet weaponry. Bottom line is that FDR was the war's dominant leader Rjensen 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy it (even setting aside the rather monarchial equivalence of the nation and its leader), and think we should controversial, POV statements in the lead. Each step was a negotiation. Certainly, the USSR did not "follow our lead" at Yalta, but negotiated, winning some, losing others. The US acceded to the British in invading North Africa; it was clearly not the US' preferred approach. The US negotiated to get the Russians to agree to declare war on Japan AFTER Hitler was defeated, not before. In these negotiations, we offered money, equipment and, later, people, but from the beginning both the UK and the USSR put more lives on the line, and they had significantly more military expertise (as one whose Grandfather died in the US debacle at the Kasserine Pass). As to policy re postwar Germany, are you suggesting that the US led the situation by splitting Germany? I don't think that was FDR's goal (or would have been, had he lived). Sam 00:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am arguing that the Allies were a team and the preeminent leader was FDR. To a greater or lesser extent each of the Allies worked directly with him (and not with each other), so he was the bub of the efforts and set the agenda. "Leader" implies committee chair, not dictator. The previous version falsely implied there were a bunch of leaders in alphabetical order. That was bad history. Rjensen 01:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think our differences are clear. I disagree with "preeminent", as well as some other characterizations (including language in the current version, saying he was "the" great leader). I happen to be a big fan of FDR politically, and think he was a tremendous leader any way you look at it. But did he make every effort to overcome isolationism during the 1940 election? When he was saying "I will not send your boys to fight in a foreign war" (quote not checked for exact accuracy)? Do we believe his statements to the public or his private correspondence with Churchill? Would he have led the country into war absent an attack, or would Churchill's England continue to stand "alone" (with the Soviet Union)? We can't know. FDR did what he had to do because we were attacked, and he did it well.

These are hotly contested historical points and will remain so for some time. There is not "good" or "bad" history when arguing over such things as historical credit; I don't think either of us have disagreed on specifics here, only characterization (indeed, I might find it to be "bad" history, or at least not my kind of history, to be overfocused on credit as opposed to explanation). I'm going to let this sit for a bit and see if anyone else weighs in. But I'd soften that lead; I was already worried that it was too fawning in its praise and credit. Sam 02:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The complaint seems to be that FDR did not do enough of this or that. Fact is he was the preeminent leader of the Allies--was someone equal or more important as the team leader??--certainly not. Fact is FDR moved the country out of isolationism in the late 1930s--who else competes with him in that regard??. His critics said that a million times a day! What would have happened if X, Y, Z were different? Who knows--the article should not speculate on hypotheticals. As for motivation--we should follow the consensus of historians who are not quite sure what his motivations were. Rjensen 03:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try to really leave it alone and let someone else weigh in, but I do think the Allied effort is best described as a partnership, and consider the extraordinary losses of the USSR, England, and other countries (many sufferred before a single US troop was deployed) critically important. Let's see what others think. You've dialed it back some, I'd dial it back more, especially with "the great enemy" (which is kind of purple prose anyways).

I generally like what you've done with the second paragraph (I assume it's you, I haven't checked), but can't stand the "remains a beacon for American liberalism". More purple prose -- as well as questionable (which I say as an American liberal). Sam 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

the number of dead soldiers is surely not a measure of the leadership role of of FDR, Stalin, Chiang, Hitler etc. The point is that all the players in the Allies revolved around FDR. As for the "beacon" -- I've been reading many debates among Dems in 2006 about the future of their party, and they keep calling for another FDR. That makes FDR a beacon. Rjensen 03:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The language read that the Democratic Party is a Beacon of Liberalism, not FDR. I'd agree with FDR being a beacon, but I'd find a different way to say it. As to dead soldiers, unfortunately, a good part of what stopped Hitler was the sheer volume of dead piling up on the Eastern Front. The Tsar couldn't pile them up that high without a revolution, but Stalin could. It, yes, says something about leadership. Sam 03:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was the leader insider USSR, but not among the other Allies. I changed beacon to touchstone. Rjensen 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's influence was particularly accute in the French, Greek, Italian and Yugoslav resistance; the Greek and Yugoslav resistance played a fairly critical role, tying down sizable contingents of German troops, and making supply to the North African zone more difficult. The French resistance, of course, contributed the most picturesque movie settings and gave us existentialism. Stalin also had considerably more influence with the Chinese communists, and with significant groups in the colonial areas, and coordinating against the Japanese was eased by his involvement. It was a true World War. Sam 04:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

true enough about the various resistance movements. But the article was talking about the Allies. Rjensen 04:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes, see what you think of them. Several others have made changes to the paragraph overnight, and I tried to tidy some of those up a bit (e.g., changing USA to United States for consistency). The phrase I'm proposing is "decisive leadership", as what's emerged from this discussion is that I think we both would view Roosevelt's role and that of the US as "decisive", leaving the meaningless debate over who gets more credit to the side by avoiding a phrase like "the" great.

I see there's been a lot of back and forth on scholarly surveys and greatest Presidents. I really don't like the addition of "some", because the surveys (silly as I think they are, ranking historical figures) are consistent and its just weaselly to say otherwise, but it may be that if we elminate the "3" greatest people will be happy without the "some". (Though I must say, I like the intro as a whole quite a bit at this point). Sam 13:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Length: Nominations for Pruning

Part of what got this article Featured Article status was a very heavy pruning to get it down, putting a lot of good information in daughter articles. I've noted that the length has increased about 10KB since it got FA status a few days ago. I did most (but not all) of the pruning, and I'm sorry if I pruned some things people really want in the main article. I did my best to keep the big points in summary form.

But, I think we should keep this trim. In pruning, I worked very hard to avoid cutting what I consider the heart and soul of this page, which is FDR's role in the New Deal and his role in shaping the world during World War II (and I think the article is strong with respect to each of these). I still don't want to see material cuts in either of those two sections. So, if we're going to keep this to 50KB, more or less, what else should we prune?

I'm tempted to set up a daughter article for FDR's legacy and start pruning there (we could go on and on about memorials, and I've spent a lot of time myself at the Home and Library, but its not critical, in my view, to the article). Support? Other proposals? Sam 13:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the article has been repeatedly bloated with the same things which have been repeatedly removed with justification then eventually added back in. I'm not sure why certain individuals feel they must persist. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 22:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain that it's merely the same people adding information back in, but rather new contributors who are simply unaware of why the article doesn't contain the specific tidbit they want to put in. I'm sure when I started editing Wikipedia I unknowingly added in information that had been pruned before I joined. It's a difficult phenomenon, unfortunately. Fearfulsymmetry 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's mostly certain people, who I'm avoiding naming in order to avoid participating in a personal attack. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Greatest president

It's a WP:OR violation to say that "all" surveys name FDR one of top 3; that is, unless we cite this assertion to an expert on presidential greatness surveys. Please keep this NPOV by sticking with "many" instead of "all". Uncited assertions of opinion-based absolute truths are objectionable. Hdtopo 00:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

the experts are cited at Historical rankings of United States Presidents which is linked. Rjensen 00:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Franksgiving

I've noticed that any information regarding Franksgiving was removed from this article during the FAC. What is the reasoning for this? This event should surely at least garner a wikilink to the page. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was gone before I and others started editing to get the overall article to the appropriate size for a Featured Article. But given that FDR's record on civil rights, including issues involving Japanese internment, anti-semitism, and racial minorities, was relegated to a daughter article, I'd be opposed to adding such a reference in the main article. I'd suggest sticking it in the article on Criticisms of FDR, or making it a "see also" somewhere. One of the notable things about FDR seems to be the variety of levels on which he influenced people, so some are moved by issues of paralytic illness, others by the economic issues, others by patriotism, some are put off by the aristocratic thing, others care about rationing and Thanksgiving. Come tothink of it, there is no mention in the article of rationing. Sam 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is overcrowded--the invasion of Normandy, which FDR worked on for many months--gets 2 sentences. Rjensen 21:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, the only article that links to Franksgiving is Thanksgiving. I should think one of FDR's daughter articles should link there. I dunno if criticisms is appropriate. Perhaps the article on the economic effects of the Great Depression? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's call it a New Deal program and link it there :) Rjensen 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - I think I'll celebrate it this year, as well as Thanksgiving (and Canadian Thanksgiving). Should do wonders for my local grocer. And my waist. Sam 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional language

I see since the FAC process, several cuts made for length to the personal and family life sections have been added (at least one with cites - Yea!). Should we create a subarticle focused either on his personal life or on "Franklin and Eleanor" so that these points can be fleshed out and grow? Sam 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The United States the principal financier of the Allies?

The article says: "During the war, Roosevelt and the United States provided decisive leadership against Nazi Germany and made the United States the principal arms supplier and financier of the Allies who defeated Germany, Italy and Japan." At the same time if we check "U.S. National debt as a % of GDP" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg), we see that U.S. debt during the war was greater that its GDP. So who really financed Allies using the States as a proxi?

I suspect we're talking about the "war bonds" that virtually every American, of almost any means, had in a drawer somewhere. War bonds and ration coupons were a big part of the currency of the time. But, as to the overall statement that the US became the principal arms supplier and financier, that is a statement that ought to be backed up by a quantitative citation somewhere. In dollar terms, how much did the US, the British Empire, the USSR, both Chinas, etc. all contribute? While I suspect the statement is right, I know I'm looking at it through my American eyes. Sam 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Sam.

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~). It turns out there is a whole article devoted to Military production during World War II ; I haven't found the equivalent on finance, but there is some comparative GDP data in there. I think we should add this link to the current language; I'm not sure "principal" is the right word given the stats, and would suggest instead "largest" (yes, the Soviet Union produced more tanks and a few other things, as did the UK, but taken as a whole, it is quite clear the US is the largest). Sam 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

look at the Lend Lease article: US sent out $14 to $20 billion to Britain; $9-10 billion to the Soviet Union; France, $3.5 billion; and China and India, $2.2 billion, for a total of $48 billion. Rjensen 17:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That argues for a "big" number, but doesn't argue for "principal", which suggests more than just big. We're dealing with economies with a couple trillion total GDP among them engaged in total war; I'm not sure $48 billion over 6 years gets us to "principal". Do we know the total UK, Soviet, Chinese and American debt relating to the war effort and its source? I'll bet war bonds were more than $48 billion by themselves. It may be that the US makes principal on the size of our economy alone, but I just don't know. Sam 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Sandelman

I deleted a couple sentances in early life that cited to Conrad Sandelman. I could not find this source after searching the usual places, or the information attributed to it (C+ grades - I got several sources for "average" grades, or "average at best", but no C+s) - can some identify it or provide other support? I'm also just not sure why this was worth the space. Sam 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Death Cover-Up

Hello all, I am a junior in high school and my history teacher was talking about how FDR didn't really die from a cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs but from from a heart attack while having sex with his mistress. To be honest I'm not sure on who the mistress was, probably the secretary mentionedin this article but does anyone else know about this?

What do they teach in high school these days? He was a cyborg, so how could he die? But his mission was complete. (Ask your teacher his or her sources and check them - you won't get a better education). Sam 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A perfect example of why our Schools are in need of reform. Whether true or not - it has no place in the classroom. --Northmeister 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that, the teachers that tell you the wierder things about stuff are usually the more interesting ones, and thus you try a little harder in their class. I remember my Grade 10 History teacher taught us all how to make hooch around the Depression and Probation lessons. Highlandlord 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move of cabinet box

I just wanted to weigh in and say that I really dislike having the cabinet box disrupt the flow of text - I think it should be after rather than before legacy. How do others feel? Sam 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

good idea. move it. Rjensen 19:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article

From Rosenzweig's article: "The 10,000-word essay on Franklin Roosevelt was the only one with multiple errors. Again, some are small or widely accepted, such as the false claim (made by Roosevelt supporters during the 1932 election) that fdr wrote the Haitian constitution or that Roosevelt money was crucial to his first election to public office in 1910. But two are more significant—the suggestion that a switch by Al Smith’s (rather than John Nance Garner’s) delegates gave Roosevelt the 1932 nomination and the statement that the Supreme Court overruled the National Industrial Recovery Act (nira) in 1937, rather than 1935.". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he accessed last summer, even though this was only published last month. The NIRA date was caught some time ago, as was the Garner delegate switch; the claim on the Haitian constitution was caught more recently (but, note that according to one of our editors, the proper source of the claim is a 1920 FDR speech; that is now reflected though a citation to the speech would be useful). On the statement that Roosevelt won election by virtue of the Roosevelt name, Roosevelt money and Democratic landslide, I think it remains accurate - I read the claim as not tied to campaign expenditures per se, which were far less important in those days, but rather to his family's general stature. So, one thing about wiki, we like to fix our old mistakes on a regular basis, even if we keep making new ones! It would be pretty neat if we could get Rosenzweig to sign on and weigh in. Sam 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he does sais that historians should edit wiki, and in his article he notes "Writing about Wikipedia is maddeningly difficult. Because Wikipedia is subject to constant change, much that I write about Wikipedia could be untrue by the time you read this." I would not be suprised if he has already edited Wikipedia :) I think we can easily find his email and ask for a Wikipedia:Academic peer review.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

scholarly surveys

What's the use of this in the introduction? That's seems a little bit dishonest here, it doesn't allow people to read the article first and make up their own minds. Instead one gets bombarded with a survey in which other people opinon's matter. Intangible 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a major fact about Roosevelt's reputation that needs reporting. The article itself does not make comparisons with other presidents. Note that FDR's reputations is the same among liberals as conservatives. Rjensen 06:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Add blood relationship between FDR and Eleanor

I think that the article should clarify the relationship between Theodore Roosevelt, Eleanor, and FDR. I think we should include in the article that FDR and Eleanor were 5th cousins and that Theodore was the cousin of FDR. Is this ok if I add it? Here is the source that goes over it:

http://www.nps.gov/elro/who-is-er/q-and-a/q6.htm

71.131.219.6 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a note of 5th cousins with a cite is fine; however, there's a lot of stuff that has crept back in without citation to the discussion of Franklin and Eleanor (and some of it is material that was pulled out in the FA process when no good citation could be found), and I've pruned some of that out. I don't think there should be a separate one paragraph section; there was a lot of criticism in the FA process of short sections and a cumbersome table of contents, and I've eliminated the heading. I also think it is clear that there really should be an article on Franklin and Eleanor, but that will take some work, especially work on getting good citations. There really isn't enough space in this one for a lot of detail, though that detail should be elsewhere. Some of it is in the Eleanor article, but that article also needs work, which is going to be a higher priority for me at this point than a Franklin & Eleanor article. Just my thoughts. Sam 02:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New Deal

I can't believe this article doesn't mention the fact that the majority of academic economists today state that FDR's New Deal policies aggravated and extended the Great Depression. It is historically and economically inaccurate to say that FDR "saved capitalism" or "got us out of the Depression."

Only a small minority of economists think that way. Whaples did a survey of economic historians and economists. he asked "Taken as a whole, government policies of

the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression. Ofthe economists 27% agreed and 51% disagreed. Of the economic historians, only 6% agreed and 74% disagreed. (the rest were in the partly agree/disagree group). See [12] Rjensen 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Pr 97/95

Milton Friedman

I don't think Milton Friedman belongs in the lead, especially given how hard to was to trim the lead to that length. I've got nothing against noting criticism of New Deal Policies in the body (and, indeed, believe I drafted the language on criticism of tax policy down below), as well as in the article on criticism of FDR (which currently suffers from too much attention by fringe complainants and too little from academics with serious critiques) but would think the better way to do this would be to add a specific cite in the body to a substantive point, and not just note that someone has broadbrush objections to policies in the lead. Sam 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Haiti

He personally led US Marines into Haiti to overturn the only independent black republic besides Abyssinia. By all accounts, FDR administered Haiti brutally and cruelly with no regard for lives. Even in 1920 after gross atrocities were reported in the media, FDR claimed responsibility but when that caused an uproar, he denied responsibility. In the campaign of 1920 President Harding said this: "Practically all we know is that thousands of native Haitians have been killed by American Marines, and that many of our own gallant men have sacrificed their lives at the behest of an Executive department in order to establish laws drafted by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy...I will not empower an Assistant Secretary of the Navy to draft a constitution for helpless neighbors in the West Indies and jam it down their throats at the point of bayonets borne by US Marines."

Really, this will not do; the first sentence asserts that FDR went to Haiti himself and commanded troops, which is most surprising for a civilian. All this needs sources. Septentrionalis 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a very busy somewhat offbeat vandal. At least we get some different vandals here. I have issued one warning already. I suggest reverting such vandalism periodically. Sam 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep watching. Septentrionalis 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopkins in summary

Hopkins was just added to the lead: I'd prefer to keep the focus on FDR there; Hopkins is mentioned in the text, but I don't think he should have a place in the lead. Sam 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In ww2 Hopkins was FDR's top aide and advisor--he even lived in the White House, so I think that deserves a mention (5 words?) Rjensen 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be over-sensitive because I spent a lot of time cutting down that lead once upon a time - and it wasn't easy. Right now, other than Hopkins, the individuals mentioned in the lead are Truman, Churchill and Eleanor, each of which I think has a clear, uncontested purpose to being there by name (OK, I had argued once in favor of the "Big 3" instead of Churchill, but that's past). I just don't want to see more creep in the size and coverage of the lead. But, let's see what others say, so far it's 1 to 1 on the score, and if it has to be someone, I'd just as soon it be Hopkins. Sam 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well i guess Staling would be the next one to mention--of course it was Hopkins who talked to Churchill and Stalin all the time, which makes him critical to understanding FDR during the war. I see Hopkins sort of like Cheney today or Bobby Kennedy during JFK's administration. Rjensen 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge the case for Hopkins; I actually think he's someone who should have more visibility, but I think the case is equally strong for many others during WWII (Stalin, certainly, but also McArthur, Eisenhower, and his relationship with the armed forces generally, Wallace) and another half dozen during the depression and his first 100 days; many of these others are more fully independent actors than was Hopkins. I'll leave it for now, but will take the initiative to delete it if others start to creep in or if other editors weigh in that they think it should be out. Sam 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Poland

I wish you had had the courtesy to engage in debate before removing the references to Stalin and Churchill. The story of the deterioration in the relatinship between Roosevelt and Churchill is admirably described in 'For your freedom and ours' by Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud which is heavily annotated with footnotes, too many to include here. I would like to reinsert my precis of the story but courtesy demands that I should, at least, offer you the chance of reading the material. I am happy to supply any particular references, not least from Churchill himself, from Lord Moran his doctor, from (prime minister) Mikolajczyk's book 'The Rape of Poland'in which he describes how he found out about the redrawing of the Eastern borders, from Doris Kearns Goodwin's book 'No ordinary time'. I am sorry not to have given chapter and verse hitherto; the apparatus of WP is clumsier than that of books. Is it possible that you might yourself restore some version of what I had written? Roger Arguile August 22nd. 2006

Roger--on this important topic Wiki needs to use the very best scholarship. Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud wrote a good book about one aircraft squadron but did not pretend to study the diplomatic literature on the subject from Britain, US and USSR. There are excellent bibliographies in the Churchill and FDR articles that make good starting points. Rjensen 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you disputing George Kennan's account or that of Mikolajczyk? Or are you saying that Cloud and Olson have misunderstood them? Have you read their book? They DID pretend to study the diplomatic literature. I am not convinced and will make an insertion unless you can come up with something more precise. The whitewash of FDR in the article is not acceptable. Moreover, the thesis that one needs the best scholarship is false. When an issue is raised, as it was, in relation to the the Tehran conference, about Roosevelt's duplicity over Poland, it may not come from a primary source but it needs either refuting or including. FDR's relationship with his ambassador to Moscow before the war, his promotion of pro-Soviet propaganda during the war, his cooled relationship with Churchill, his lack of candour, to be polite, with the Poles in exile, all indicate a less honest and less shrewd man than is indicated in the text. Frankly it won't do to ignore secondary sources which clearly rely on the likes of Harriman, Kennan andBohlen (one of the translaters at Tehran). It becomes clear that it was at Tehran not Yalta that the pass was sold well. Roger Arguile 23 Aug 2006

My point is that a highly debated topic like this needs two things: first it has to cite the best scholarship. Otherwise it's a signal that an editor has a POV to make that is not supported by the scholars who have done the original research in the archives and documents. Words like "duplicity" strongly suggest POV on the part of an editor--that is not Wiki language. Second it has to present different interpretations ofthe same events. Presenting one side is POV and can't be allowed. Rjensen 19:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you don't ansdwer any of my questions. I propose to proceed. Roger Arguile 23rd. August 2006

please don't proceed until you become familiar with the topic and feel prepared to handle it in an impartial fashion without POV. Rjensen 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Broadening the debate - or starting it!

I wonder if I can seek some further assistance. I made an insertion about the involvement of FDR in the decisions about Poland. I foolishly did not provide footnotes. Mr. Rjensen (above) removed it on the grounds that the assertions were unsupported. I have attempted, as you may see, to get him to discuss the substantial issues, not least that Roosevelt was instrumental in the conclusion of a secret agreement with Stalin to abandon the eastern parts of Poland including Lvov to the USSR at Tehran (not Yalta). I feel frustrated because all I get from him is a rather condescending admonition to find out more and rely only on 'the best scholarship' whatever that may be. We all have our failings, but I wonder if anyone is interested, not in the finer points of NPOV (a rich seam for disputation of often doubtful significance) nor in generalities, but in the actual issues. A serious challenge has been made to FDR's conduct of an aspect of the war, supported by witnesses. Does anyone else feel that this is an issue that needs taking up? I am disposed to make an insertion but I see no point in ping pong. Roger Arguile St. Bartholomew (Aug 24th.) 2006

This is an advanced article on a topic with heavy POV. Roger Arguile inserted material about FDR's motivations based on a popular book about a fighter squadron--a book that made no pretense of scholarship about FDR. We have lots of fine scholarship listed in the references, and an editor who is truly interested will first engage that literature (and the scholarship on Churchill). An editor who says he does not care to study the "best scholarship" and snidely dismisses same ("whatever that may be") is perhaps signalling any footnote will do if it fits with his preconceived POV notions. That's fine for someone's personal blog space, but not fine for a good encyclopedia that insists everything be based on reliable sources--of which there are many. For starters it is highly controversial to say that Poland had some sort of right to its interwar Ukrainian lands that the US and Britain were obligated--for some reason--to defend. Rjensen 15:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Professor Jensen, If I were submitting a paper for a learned journal you would be right. WP, as I understand it, allows anyone to contribute. It has less means of ensuring the good editorial control. In its egalitarianism it should be open to substantive discussion; I am sorry you do not think me worth your advancing substantive arguments. I am also sorry you took my remarks as snide (as I took yours as condescending). If you are saying that the present article is very POV, I would agree. In places it is propagandist in its defence of FDR. Your own remarks indicate a POV: Lvov may have been once a Ukrainian city; it was in 1939 heavily populated with Poles. It was no more compassionate to displace them than it was to displace the people of Breslau. As to why the pre-war frontiers should be defended by the Allies, the answer is simple: they said they would. FDR was, as I understand it, simultaneously assuring Stalin of one thing as he was electioneering with Polish Americans of another in 1944. The Atlantic Charter deserves a mention too. Roger Arguile 15:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Allies never promised to restore Polish borders. That is Polish POV. Rjensen 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What you say is true but incomplete. Is it true that Britain and the United States committed themselves to 'respect the right of all peoples to choose the the form of government under which they will live' and that both Churchill and Roosevelt specifically condemned any changes in a country's borders against its peoples will and called for a restoration of sovereign rights and self-government to those who have been forcibly deprived of them, at the meeting at Placentia Bay? Is it true that at the meeting between FDR and Charles Rosmarekthe president of the Polish American congress the map of Poland in FDR's room displayed Poland with its pre 1939 eastern frontiers? Whatever was said or not said, does this imply nothing? Roger Arguile 16:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

I suggest that this article needs more information about FDR's personal life. The history of WWII is described in some detail, even though it's avilable in several other articles. On the other hand, the personal life of FDR, such as his relationship with his wife, mistress(es), children, etc. is described relatively briefly. Also, how about at least a few words about Eleanor's activities in this article? Profhobby 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This article needs cleanup.

There seems to have been a rather disturbing defacement of this page. The text clearly has a number of 'nots' inserted and removed throughout the text in order to attempt to convey the opposite meaning of the original wording, specifically those quotes related to his achievement and legacy.

131.107.0.73 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)K