Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Fun Fact

Franklin D. Roosevelt disliked eating his mothers blueberry pies as a child, as they were never moist enough. Franklin D. Roosevelt was half black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtheman768 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's grautitous crap, and you know it.AlbertSM (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Different Caption

Roosevelt's ebullshit public personality helped bolster the nation's confidence.

This doesn't sound correct at all and I think it needs to be edited.

Looks like someone made the fix already j_lechem@msn.com 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Caption

The caption should read: Roosevelt preparing to sign war declaration against Japan in 1941 72.174.2.252 22:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure, I guess you COULD make it anything you want to. From the picture its just a peice of paper. So it doesn't really matter what you say he is signing even though it isnt what he is signing... pfft. my quotes better —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.174.2.252 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

The caption hasnt been changed yet, it should be on Japan and not germany- someone please change it as only admin can. Thank you. ---Kira Sohma

FDR almost too good a listener

"In particular, sympathetic listening by a leader can be misinterpreted by his followers as giving his assent. Franklin Roosevelt suffered especially from this problem. Almost everyone who had a private conversation with FDR left feeling the president agreed with him . . . led to a lot of hard feelings and battles royal within his administration." --Steven Sample, THE CONTRARIAN'S GUIDE TO LEADERSHIP, Wiley, 2002, p. 29.

And I think Clinton also had this strength/liability;

Me too. Interesting idea perhaps worth mentioning Gautam ^Discuss 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more discussion of FDR's leadership style, different viewpoints, each with good references, I think it would add a lot to our article. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

PostHumous Law Degree

A little fun fact for everyone that is actually for real, Franklin Roosevelt recieved a posthumous law degree from Columbia University along with his fifth cousin Teddy Roosevelt on Sept 25, 2008. Facemonster 21: , 26 October 2008 (UTC)

FDR as an honest experimentalist

I think that’s the best explanation of his leadership style. So when the article says, 'Historians categorized Roosevelt's program as "relief, recovery and reform",' that’s a static view looking backward. The reality at the time was much more dynamic. Franklin’s general approach was, Try something and if it’s not working, Try something else.

A lot of people preach this, but FDR made it work, I think because of quick cycle feedback.

The main article needs a fuller explanation of the CCC. It was amazing that he could put together such large a program so quickly, and when the economy and the nation really needed it.

And I’m not sure what problem a commentator has with the banking crisis stating that it’s 'dubious' and 'not in citation given' (which is a whole book). There really was a banking crisis right as FDR was taking office and it really was pretty serious. Maybe our article ever so slightly overstates it. And being so afraid of overstating is a wikipedia diseas, and the result is that articles end up timid and flat. Yes, our goal should be to ever-so-slightly understate something, but sometimes we’re going to miss and that’s okay.

DannyJohansson states that FDR’s economic policies were not helpful. Now, I disagree even with the claim that FDR had some kind of programmic whole. Again, it was much more flexible and evolving than that. But let’s have the free-ranging discussion. I welcome it, including some including within the article itself (with footnotes and endnotes). As I understand it, Franklin came to deficit spending and priming the pump relatively late, and even with all his alphabet soup programs, not really enough was done in this direction until World War II necessitated it.

Franklin combined concern for the average citizen with a reality-based approach to problems. Again, this is something that everyone preaches but few leaders are able to achieve to his extent. One very thought-provoking book I’d recommend is VACCINE: THE CONTROVERSIAL STORY OF MEDICINE'S GREATEST LIFESAVER, Arthur Allen, Norton, 2007. The part about polio involves a pretty good discussion of FDR (including the possibility that he had Guillain-Barré syndrome instead). And also how he grew as a human being. A local blacksmith worked out hand controls for his car and he drove around the red dirt roads surrounding Warm Springs, Georgia, and he would sometimes stop and talk with people, both black and white alike. Apparently, there was a druggist he liked visiting who would bring a soda out to the curb. And there’s a great line I like: The bracing humor and pugnaciousness of his fellow patients. So yeah, he had opportunity to really get to know the average citizen. And like with the Great Depression, Franklin got in the habit of turning a negative into a positive. FriendlyRiverOtter 01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

older entries

FDR propogated the greatest human rights violations in the United States since slavery. His internment of the Japanese should be highlighted in it's own section entitled "human rights violations."

Here is the version before my edits:

He pushed for admission of African-Americans into better positions in military. In 1942 Roosevelt made the final decision in ordering the internment of Japanese citizens and their American-born children during World War II.[1] Beginning in the 1960s he was charged with not acting decisively enough to prevent or stop the Holocaust which killed 6 million Jews. Critics cite episodes such as when in 1939, he did not allow the SS St. Louis filled with 950 Jewish refugees into the United States. Defenders point out that the Roosevelt could not violate the federal laws that prevented the refugees from landing.

I took out the UTexas source link, only because its focus seemed a little different from what the Wikipedia article text was talking about. I changed it to "Japanese American citizens" as opposed to "Japanese citizens" to be clear that they were American citizens of Japanese descent, not citizens of Japan. Also, I re-worded the Holocaust/St. Louis bits because it was rife with weasel words. (Charged by who? Which defenders? Which federal laws? Is it a notable defense? Etc.) It'd be great if someone could come up with more specific/sourced information about the charges/defenders. Schi 23:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear what happened. The adults (Issei) were Japanese citizens and NOT citizens of US. The children (most under 21 but not all) had US citizenshio and most also had dual Japanese citizenship. Rjensen 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Interning enemy nationals is routine in wartime; the internment of American citizens is what is controversial. Roosevelt interned German and Italian citizens as well, but not American citizens of German or Italian descent. I don't see the point in mentioning Japanese citizens unless we also have sourced that considered their internment to be a violation of their civil rights. -Will Beback 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Japanese American citizens, that is U.S. citizens of Japanese descent, were interned. From the Wikipedia article (emphasis added): "Japanese American Internment refers to the forcible relocation of approximately 110,000[1] Japanese and Japanese Americans (62 percent of whom were United States citizens)[2] [3] from the west coast during World War II to hastily constructed housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps" in remote portions of the nation's interior." Schi 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the great majority of citizens were children under 21 who went to the camps with their parents. FDR's main goal was not the kids but the parents, who were citizens of Japan but not USA. Rjensen 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That is probably true but the civil rights violation was of the citizens not of the nationals. If our goal is to report on all of the enemy aliens interned then that is different, but the heading for this section is "civil rights". Therefore I think we should limit ourselves to reporting on the perceived civil rights violations, not the general domestic conduct of the war. -Will Beback 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should give the correct information. As for perceptions: the Supreme Court announced there was no civil rights violation. The "perception" came decades later. Rjensen 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not incorrect that he ordered the internment of Japanese Americans, a violation of their civil rights. He also orderd the internment of enemy aliens, but they did not have civil rights which are the focus of this section. It is incorrect to say that complaints about thte internment did not occur contemporaneously. There were protests and court cases. -Will Beback 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Issei were not citizens of the US but they were citizens of Japan. They were the targets of the order. There were very few protests indeed--and the Supreme Court explictly ruled in favor of FDR. So we say all that. This is a bio of FDR after all, not a history of the 1980s when opinion changed on the righness of the actions. Rjensen 06:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The order covered all persons of Japanese nationality on the West Coast, not limited or even directly targeted at enemy aliens. There were protests and court cases, though more came later. We do have the benefit of hindsight and Roosevelt's decision in this matter is considered a black mark on his presidency. Finally, this is a section devoted to his civil rights activities. If you think that his overall enemy alien internment policy is worth mentioning then it belongs in a different section. -Will Beback 06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Black mark? that sounds like POV. Rjensen 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We're allowed to have opinions on talk pages. ;) -Will Beback 09:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but we have to keep them out of the main page. It's especially POV to slant the story to obscure the main group FDR was worried about and concentrate instead on their children. Rjensen 09:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The order referred to people of Japanese ancestry. What evidence do you have that he was targetting only the Japanese citizens? -Will Beback 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The children under 21 of Japanese ancestry were not the target (they were seldom mentioned). There was an enormous discussion of the Issei who were citizens of Japan --that is there was significant worry that in fact they were loyal to their country. Rjensen 09:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What are our sources for this information? General DeWitt did not seem to care about such distinctions:

I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty...It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty...But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.[2]

According to our own article, Executive Order 9066, 62% of internees were 2nd generation. That article also links to 3 separate Supreme Court cases concerning the internments, which indicate that it was a disputed issue at the time. -Will Beback 09:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the language proposed is fine on the Internment. The language is german On the Holocaust, if we're going to reference to issues first being raised in the 60s, I'd like to have a cite of some sort to when they were raised or who raised them. Also, on the St. Louis, the sub article is clear that it was the State Department, not Roosevelt, who denied permission; both your language and the prior language leave the decision in Roosevelt's hands, and it would be nice to fix this, and make it consistent with the more thorough article, while making the other changes. Thanks. Sam 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the Supreme Court ruled for FDR. DeWitt certainly had his views--as did many others like Earl Warren, but this is about FDR, not about them. The 63% you mention were mostly children under 21--nobody proposed they be taken away from their parents. The demographic data is in US Department of the Interior, War Relocation Authority, The Evacuated People: A Quantitative Description (1946) and in Dorothy Thomas The Salvage. For Some age data see Daniels [3] [4]

We aren't doubting that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of FDR. The issue is that there were those that opposed it(MITZ) at the time. (The Supreme Court currently allows abortion, but that isn't a sign that there are no objections to it). DeWitt was FDR's advisor, and we aren't concerned with his views but with his actions, with which DeWitt was involved. How do you know that the Japanese Citizens were the real target, and that the 62% were mostly children? -Will Beback 10:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

DeWitt was not FDR's advisor, he was in the military chain of command. Was there opposition? Not much. The main Japanese American organizations endorsed the moves and did NOT file suit. A few (3 or 4) affected individuals filed suit. The age breakdown is in the standard sources. Rjensen 11:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about which "standard sources" you're relying upon? DeWitt, though an officer, nonetheless advised FDR. While the protests may have been few they did reach the highest court in the land so it is inaccurate to say that the perception of the interment as a wrong was not solely a construct of later generations. Truman himself authorized compensation in 1948 for the economic losses. Getting back to the core issue, there is still nothing to show that interning foreign nationals violated civil rights, or that the enemy aliens were the sole target of the program (as opposed to U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry). Unless we find substntiatoin for those points, the text in question should focus on the 62% whose civil rights were violated, seeing as "Civil rights issues" is the heading of the section. -Will Beback 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: contemporaneous protests.

During World War II our rector was willing to incur the wrath of others when he went to stand in front of the train carrying Japanese-Americans to internment camps.[5]

This is from a sermon by the current rector of All Saints Episcopal Church. -Will Beback 12:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Korematsu case, of course, deals with the internment of a US citizen of Japense ancestry[6]; the specific order in question and cited in the decision is an order to intern all persons of Japanese ancestry, not those who are Japanese citizens. Please note that this discussion is not the main discussion of the issue, and that the main discussion should be put into the sub article or into the article on the Internment; this should only be a summary. I would be interested in the specific citations for the breakdown of age and citizenship. Sam 15:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this: In 1942 Roosevelt made the final decision in ordering the internment of Japanese Americans and other ethnic groups during World War II. Japanese American means those of Japanese descent that are residents or citizens of the U.S. I think Rjensen's concern that the executive order targeted the first-generation Japanese Americans is not necessarily relevant. Until we see evidence about the intention of the order, we should stick to what the order actually accomplished - and in any case, as Sam pointed out, this article is just a summary and more details about intention, etc. should be discussed in the main article. As for the question of whether or not the order/internment counts as a civil rights issue, I agree with Will Beback. There is enough evidence in the form of contemporaneous court cases and later events that this is indeed a "civil rights issue", which is what this subsection is about.

Also, what about the other issue I raised about the wording of the Holocaust charges? I see that my edits were entirely reverted, even though the issues I raised (mainly that there are weasel words about who the critics/defenders are) about the the Holocaust charges were not addressed. Schi 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, Japanese Americans were the only ethnic group interned. Otherwise it looks fine to me. -Will Beback 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I included it because someone else had previously tried to add it to the article before and it was reverted. From the Japanese American internment article: Some 120,000 U.S. residents of German and Italian descent across the country were also arrested and interned as security risks, but no compensation was ever paid to them. Schi 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where the "120,000" figure comes from - it isn't in the cited sources. They give much smaller numbers, and give no indication how many of the internees were citizens. The bulk were internees from Latin America. In any case, some number of American citizens of Italian and German ancestry were interned, so I suppose it's fair to include them as "other ethnic groups". -Will Beback 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree in pulling that out. Thirty pages of data on FDR and you can't even take four words to say "He built concentration camps"? Hell yeah. Not like they're mentioned in the articles on Hitler or the Holocaust. Mentioning it there would clearly just be trying to satisfy those pesky 1980's morals that make no sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistAssassin (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The others here have demonstrated that there is nothing immoral or questionable about putting an entire race into concentration camps. Since it's not immoral, it's definitely not even worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. Heil! Heil! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

the argument has been made and does not need to be repeated. fdr didn't sign directive 9066. it was the japanese-americans who did, by their countless and innumerable acts of treason, terrorism, and deceit against their country of residence. they made it necessary for the act. the concentration camps should be mentioned in their wiki article, because they're responsible; not some president who was forced into it by their repeated violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fala link

This isn't my area of expertise, so I'll refrain from just throwing it into the article, but there is a reasonably extensive page (forog) on FDR's pet Scottish Terrier, Fala, that probably deserves a link from this one.

--Furpants Tom 08:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt University

Can we place something about Roosevelt University in the article? It was dedicated to him by Eleanor two weeks after his death in 1945. I don't know if Legacy would be the best place or someplace else.--Twintone 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems notable to me, probably best in Legacy. I think Legacy should be turned into a subarticle at some point so it can grow more freely, but don't have the energy to do it now. Sam 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Business Plot

Why is there no mention of the Business Plot in the FDR article? hellenica 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because all his biographers skip over it---it's a famous hoax. Rjensen 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's a hoax then why did the McCormack-Dickstein Committee find his claims to be true? 206.74.245.106 (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The article above does not believe it was a hoax. It even says that there was proof but the whole matter was just swept under the rug and forgotten. Gdo01 01:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Several hundred historians have looked into it and dismissed it. and No evidence has turned up in 70 years. what does a hoax look like? Wiki insists on reliable sources. Rjensen 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you even clicked the link to Business Plot? Apparantly many wikipedians believe that this is notable and true and have provided many citations. If you have a differing opinion then you should discuss it on the talk page there. Gdo01 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I worked on that article until a couple of conspiracy theorists seized control. There is no stopping folks like that. The ABSENCE of reliable sources proves to them there is an ongoing conspiracy in the 21st century to cover "it" up. They never define the plot: they never give a date. They usually ignore the fact that it was promoted by leading anti-semites who had a nazi-like theory of a jewish conspiracy to take over America. Sigh. I recommend people stay with Kennedy assassination theories. Rjensen 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Do I take it that there was a congresssional committee hearing? Do I take it that allegations were made? If so it is a matter of judgement whether these facts should be included in the article. One thing about WP is that it often includes material left out by others...but I would not presume to insert anything. I think the stuff about Fala is overdone; there should be more about FDR and Poland (whoops!) but there are those other than conspiracy theorists who lack tolerance. Roger Arguile 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The rule is that Wiki only reports the consensus os scholars as reported in reliable sources. We don't report hoaxes. There was a Congressional hearing regarding the activity of a retired Marine general named Butler who planned to raise hundreds of thousands of veterans, march on washington, and take over the government. The media ridiculed this as a publicity stunt by Butler (who was never arrested). there was no Congressional report. An anti-semite writer (Spivak) then published 2 articles claiming there was a business conspiracy.

Even if there were substance to support the whole thing, there is nothing sufficiently notable to merit inclusion given all the other cuts that have been made to keep this article of reasonable size. Just look at all the substance moved into subarticles like the Civil Rights or Criticisms articles. So, I wouldn't mention this at all. Sam 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a BBC radio program on this which might help with sourcing. Link. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Try this link: [7] - you'll need RealPlayer to listen to it. Ian Dunster 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Franklin D. Roosevelt

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be a good idea, and would work with moving the legacy section to a subarticle and making it "legacy and cultural depiction" - there is a lot of interesting material here, though perhaps not on the same scale as D'Arc or Alexander. It would save a legacy subarticle from becoming a rather flat recitation of honors. Sam 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bannanas (sic)

Could someone explain why someFDR one who can't even spell his vandalising contribution wants to mess about with this site? Why is it that FDR, who was not such a good man IMHO (FDR - people's president) should attract such silliness? I happen to think that this article is hagiography. I am, on the other hand, too boringly responsible to mess with it. Is this the reasonfor the vandalism? Maybe the vandals need a better hearing from the proper. I notice all these upright chaps and chappesses declaring that they have zero tolerance of vandalism, but not of hagiographising apparently. Maybe we should be listening to something to which we are at present deaf. Or am I seeing too much in all of this?Roger Arguile 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not been following this page, so I'm not sure exactly what you're refering to. If it's vandalism, that happens to be virtually every other popular article in wikipedia; this one is no exception. The problem is that wikipedia has become a standard starting place for research for tens of millions of high school and college kids, and a small percentage of them can't resist the urge to change THE article on FDR or JFK or whomever or whatever, and get instant gratification.

The solution is page protection or semi page protection, but there has been a reluctance by administrators to do that for most articles, since (in the early days) anonymous IP addresses played a large part in building wikipedia. So it falls upon editors like you and me to patrol pages and revert vandalism as quickly as we can. John Broughton | Talk 14:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

20th Amendment

Should we add, FDR's first term as President was shortend by the 20th Amendment of the US Constitution? GoodDay 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Like a little girl?

Hi all. I don't normally contribute actively to Wikipedia, but I just thought I should report a case of vandalism in the first paragraph, "A central figure of the 20th century, he does the cha cha like a little girl. HE has consistently been ranked as one of the three greatest U.S. presidents in scholarly surveys." I don't know what the original sentence was supposed to be, but I highly doubt that FDR was a big fan of the cha cha. I'd edit it myself if I really knew how or felt like putting in the effort. Hope this gets sorted out. Sorry for the anonymity.

That vandalism was fixed yesterday night around 7 pm (EST). I don't know why your browser is showing you a revision that old. Gdo01 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1934 attempt coup d'état

General Butler exposed in 1934 a coup d'état against FDR, via congressional hearings. Led by MacGuire. I don't have reliable sources yet, but it sounds interesting... John Buchanan investigated. — Xiutwel (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

general Butler admitted that HE Was planning the coup to overthrow Roosevelt with the aid of a salesman named McGuire. No reliable sources support his theory. Rjensen 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See #Business Plot section, above, for more discussion. John Broughton | Talk 14:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition to See Also section of FDR page

Please add the following resource to the SEE ALSO section:

<a href="http://www.fdrheritage.org">Franklin D. Roosevelt American Heritage Museum</a> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plaud (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

I've added information in the last paragraph of the article. [The "See also" section of Wikipedia articles is for referring readers to other Wikipedia articles (and there is not one about this museum).] John Broughton | Talk 19:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tax policy

There have been a couple of reverts of long-standing language on tax policy; I think it is important to have a discussion of Roosevelt's tax policy in this article, though am not wed to the particular language now included. Among the important points are that while Roosevelt is often charged (and once was in this article) with being the original source of high rates and a broad tax base, it was actually during Hoover's administration that the rates first increased, and the broadening of the tax base and compressing of the rates didn't occur until World War II, when the extraordinary needs of that War required them. Let's discuss what to do with this section, and end up with something better than is there now but not with nothing at all. Sam 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a biography of FDR and it is highly misleading to users to include Hoover's legislation that FDR had zero to do with. This is NOT a general history of the US. Furthermore the best scholarship should be used (like Leff). Rjensen 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that the high tax rates introduced during the depression occurred on Hoovers, rather than FDR's watch is not well understood; but, in general, I like your language better than what was here before; I made a few tweaks, see what you think of them. Always good to see more citations added. Best, Sam 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're now agreed. looks good. Rjensen 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Obituary, NY Times, April 13, 1945, Family Of Wealth Gave Advantages

The obit for FDR, published 4/13/1945, should be included under External Links in the FDR article. (I was surprised to discover that it hadn't already been cited.)

It runs to eight pages, and being an in depth contemporaneous source, represents a significant cache of additional information on this important president.no

Bias and incorrect information in the Overview

From the Overview section:

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic system. His most famous legacies include the Social Security system and the regulation of Wall Street. His aggressive use of an active federal government reenergized the Democratic Party. Roosevelt built the New Deal coalition that dominated politics into the 1960s. He and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, remain touchstones for modern American liberalism. The conservatives vehemently fought back, but Roosevelt consistently prevailed until he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. Thereafter, the new Conservative coalition successfully ended New Deal expansion, and closed most programs like the WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, arguing that unemployment had disappeared.

First off this is very poorly written and I am a bit shocked that this has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community.

The section that starts with:

"The conservatives vehemently fought back,"

Fought back to what? To He and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, remaining touchstones for modern American liberalism??? That is the sentence before that statement, and it seems someone is tryign to make a POV statement.

Further more, This sentence is an outright lie: "Roosevelt consistently prevailed until he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937."

Actually FDR did not pre-vail and his new deal legislation was voted un-constitutional by the supreme court, Afterwards, he did not only TRY to pack the court, HE DID!

Read the Court Packing wiki if you don't believe me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_packing

From The Article:

Court Packing was proposed in response to the Supreme Court overturning several of his New Deal measures that proponents claim were designed to help the United States recover from the Great Depression.

I find the majority of wiki articles relating to politics are filled with dis-information like I just decribed. 66.31.222.89 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)peterp

The majority of this artical has a pro-FDR bias it says he end the great depression with his social programs but many people believe that world war 2 did, it claims the great depression was the worst in American history but the worst was in the early 1890's, and has an anti-conservative tone during the majority of the overview and presidential terms sections. Michak 06:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is so bias, anyone can tell its just typical crap from the leftist blogosphere. Which is why we still can't trust wikipedia to be a credible source of information. FDR may be beloved by most liberals, but their are at least 20% of Americans who believe he was a terrible president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Banks

Where in this source [8] does it say that "On March 4, virtually every bank in every city was closed, as huge sums had been withdrawn by panicky customers in previous days." ? Instantiayion 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Something is very wrong with what is being said here. FDR institued a "banking holiday" for March 6-9.(interfered with free enterprise by ordering the banks closed). If "virtually every bank in every city" was already closed, then what would be the point of ordering the banks closed? Editor "Rjensen" seems to be culprit of claiming that all the banks in all the cities were closed and giving source which he claims says something that it doesn't say, and repeatedly putting it back in when it is deleted. Instantiayion 03:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Term

There seems to be an odd paragraph construction here:

"The Supreme Court was the main obstacle to Roosevelt's programs during his second term, overturning many of his programs. In particular in 1935 the Court unanimously ruled that the National Recovery Act (NRA) was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the president...".

The NRA ruling of 1935 took place in FDR's first term, of course. In a recent edit, this sentence was changed from "first" term to "second". His attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court occurred early in his second term, following his landslide re-election of 1936. JGHowes ^talk - 03:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

1: correction needed, Suprme Court passage should say FIRST TERM. thanks for catching that. 2: we want to avoid POV here, so don't talk about "interfered with free enterprise." 3. virtually every bank in the US was effectively closed down BEFORE FDR took office--and at the request of the bankers. Start with the TIME article for evidence. It describes vividly, with names of the big bankers the banking holiday ordered by governors of NY and Illinois after huge runs on the banks in the previous days (and runs on the gold reserves for foreign accounts). The system collapsed: assets were frozen; nobody could cash a check! (TIME describes how they printed up emergency script.) Each state had a different rule on closing. What FDR did was nationalize the holiday and (most important) set up a system to reopen most banks soon. Rjensen 04:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say that virtually every bank in every city was closed before FDR took offic. Instantiayion 04:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Was there a little bank in Fargo that stayed open? unlikely. ALL the banks in NY and Illinois were shut says TIME. Freidel has the details in vol 4 ch 11 and 13, (see p 193-4 = all 48 states were closed or severely restricted, as in no payments allowed) as does Kennedy. Thestock exchanges also closed. The newspapers describe how people made-do without banks. (They used barter and newly printed script). Rjensen 04:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All the banks in NY and Illionois do not constitute "virtually every bank in every city." You're making this claim out of thin air. Instantiayion 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"The number of banks that opened their doors after the banking holday in March 1933 was decidedly less than the number that had been open before." -Readings in Economics, Paul Anthony Samuelson, page 140. How would that be possible if "virtually every bank in every city" was closed prior to the holiday? Instantiayion 04:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

about 4000 small banks were permanently closed--actually merged into larger banks. Their depositors got about 85c on the dollar (the owners got little or nothing). Every bank in 48 states was closed. There's a large literature--here's a sample (which notes that California closed all its banks March 1): Jervey, William H. "When the Banks Closed: Arizona's Bank Holiday of 1933." Arizona and the West 1968 10(2): 127-152. ISSN: 0004-1408: In early 1933 the entire banking structure of the country was near collapse. Statewide bank holidays were becoming common. Although bank legislation was progressive in Arizona in the 1920's, the banks of this basically frontier state lacked the capitalization and strength to weather a storm of any consequence. In the wake of the Wall Street collapse of 1929, commodity prices fell for Arizona cattle, cotton, and copper. Copper production declined 95 percent, and the state's per capita income dipped to 263 dollars. Banks became a prime casualty with collapse and preventive mergers resulting. Historical ties bound the banks of California and Arizona together, such as personnel links, California control of some banks in Arizona, the maintenance of significant balances in California institutions by Arizona banks, and the holding of large parts of loans on livestock in Arizona by California banks. When California declared a bank holiday on the evening of 1 March 1933, it was inconceivable that Arizona could keep its banks open. Early the next morning Arizona declared a 3-day moratorium; later in the day an indefinite holiday was legalized by action of the legislature. A national moratorium went into effect on 6 March. Weaker institutions did not survive, but the banking system in the state had fewer and less severe difficulties during the 12-day holiday than in most other states. Arizona had suffered little more than a temporary interruption of business. For historic newspaper accounts look at [9] --clippings that cover most states. For example, Pennsylvania shut down on March 4, etc etc Rjensen 06:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are NY Times headlines March 1-4, 1933:

Cincinnati Exchange to Stay Open.
Delaware Bank Bills Signed.
Holiday Declared in Tennessee.
Maryland Holiday Is Extended.
MORE STATES MOVE TO PROTECT BANKS:West Virginia Enacts Authority for Holidays, Kansas Provides for Reorganizations. DELAWARE BILLS SIGNED Maryland Moratorium Extended -- Pennsylvania Law Rushed as Curbs Are Adopted. 2 STATES ORDER HOLIDAYS Governors of Tennessee and Kentucky Act -- Former Sets Five Days, the Latter One.
Pennsylvania Bill Rushed.
Fifteen Days in Idaho.
Kentucky Holiday Extended.
Some Open in Oklahoma.
Three-day Holiday in Oregon.
Two Minnesota Bank Groups Assert Intention to Stay Open
EFFECTIVE THIS MORNING; Governor Lehman Acts After an All-Night Conference With Banking Heads. PERIOD INCLUDES MONDAY All Banks and the Securities Markets Are Affected by Emergency Decree. ILLINOIS TAKES STEP, TOO Period of Closing There Is Put at Three Days -- Pederal Officials in Conferences. 2-DAY BANK HOLIDAY IS LEHMAN'S ORDER
Four Days In New Mexico.
Holiday Declared In Georgia.
MOVIE STARS LACK FOR READY CASH; California's Bank Holiday Finds Noah Beery With 45 Cents in Pocket. CHEVALIER BORROWS $2 Peggy Joyce Makes a Touch to Pay Taxi Fare -- Studio Cafes Extend Credit.
Oklahoma Holiday Extended.
Restrictions in North Carolina.
Some Kentucky Banks Open.
Two-Day Holiday in Missouri.
anyone want more proof??

Rjensen 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Jonathan Alter, in the Defining Moment, p. 190, says that by the evening of the 4th banks in 32 of 48 states were closed (as well as banks in DC), with more to come, and that the NY Fed was unable to open on the 5th. Many banks were also closed in states where there was no formal bank holiday. FDR's fireside chat on the Banks states that by the time he took office, there was hardly a bank open. I think the figures and the states listed bear out that most banks were closed, but am not sure we get to "virtually all" without more citation. What about citing Alter's 32 of 48 and quoting FDR's fireside chat here? A Musing (formerly Sam) 15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that just because a state banking holiday is declared, it doesn't mean everyone complied. Instantiayion 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a citation to a good source for the proposition that banks illegally opened during bank holidays at the end of the Hoover administration? Without such support, this argument is really reaching. A Musing (formerly Sam) 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

General POV?

Does anyone else know what I mean when I say that some articles just "feel" like POV? It's like there aren't specific examples that are just blatent POV problems, like claiming things that aren't true - but almost like there is too much information and a direct attempt to change the normal view of things. Some sections, then, read more like a college essay than an encyclopedia article. Keep your eye on the prize here, everyone.

For example - I'd start with taking a look at anywhere in the article that says "however," such as a phrase like "However, the economy did not substantially recover from the time of his inauguration in 1933 until 1940, when war expenditures commenced." Citing an article isn't enough to make it true. The phrase seemed out of place, so I took a look, and there's some considerable debate on this point - whether the New Deal programs did anything to recover the economy, or whether it was the war spending. There's controversy. i think the phrase and similar one's, questioning an established view (even when cited, like I said, this isn't a history essay) should go - maybe talk about there being argument about the source of recovery. I don't want to take it out until it's talked out a little bit, though.

Aditionally, stuff like that explanation of the conservative movement's actions are inappropriate for the introduction. Also, first sentence in paragraph four is just a bad sentence. Yes, the internment should be mentioned. Maybe in the intro. Not in the middle of a sentence describing arguably good things that the administration did. Completely out of place.

Anyway - like I said, it just has a POV "feel." Looking for "howevers" is a good place to start. Flowrider 03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I won't dispute that FDR saved the free world, but his economic policies were not helpful. You do not get that feeling from reading this article. DannyJohansson 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You might compare the very bad economy when FDR took office in 1933 with the very strong economy when he died in 1945. What more does anyone want? Rjensen 16:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the lead on April 15 for NPOV, to say (in part), "Although recovery of the economy was incomplete until almost 1940..." which is what all the books on the Depression say and as illustrated by the unemployment and GDP graphs in this Article's section Franklin D. Roosevelt#Economic environment, also the Wikipedia articles on the Great Depression, etc. A comparison to 1945 has to take wartime effects into account, as the article notes later on. JGHowes ^talk - 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually all the books say the economy was in vastly better shape in March 1945 than March 1933. Who wants to dispute that? In statistical terms it was the highest economic growth rate for any president. The POV folks actually oppose his support for labor unions, but they don't want to say so, so they talk about "unemployment" but the critics had little use for the poor or unemployed so their fake sympathy doesn't carry much weight. Rjensen 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can both images of declaration of war signing in this article be correct?

There are two images (one moving) in this article purported to be of FDR signing the declaration of war against Japan. To be specific:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FDRoosevelt.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Franklin_Roosevelt_signing_declaration_of_war_against_Japan_December_1941.jpg

However, in one of them he is wearing a light suit, has a small flag in front of him, and is flanked by onlookers. In the other, he is wearing a dark suit, there is no small flag before him, and he there are no onlookers close by.

I think it reasonable to surmise that only one of these pictures is actually of the signing of the declaration of war against Japan (unless FDR was able to do extremely fast wardrobe changes).

I was unfortunately unable to locate a picture of the declaration signing on the Roosevelt Presidential Library web site. My guess, yet to be verified, would be that the "light-suit" picture is probably incorrect, assuming that it would be less likely for the President to wear a light suit at the onset of winter and on such a somber occasion as a declaration of war.

My apologies if this issue has been brought up before.Mnentro 01:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The source of the dark suit one is here ~~and it seems by the context of that newsreel that he is signing the declaration of war against Germany when he is in the dark suit.~~ The light suit one is correct, it is the declaration of war against Japan. Gdo01 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think that is Roosevelt signing one of the various acts that were used to help Britain before 1941. Gdo01 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I found it: It's Roosevelt signing the Lend-Lease act. Look at the picture in that article. Gdo01 01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go at last . . . perhaps. The image on the page below from the FDR presidential library purports to be a photo of FDR signing the declaration of war against Japan. This image, I believe, is different from BOTH of the images in the Wikipedia article. Note the black armband that FDR is wearing and the solemn expression on his face. I would hazard to say that this is "the real deal," not the images currently used in Wikipedia. The URL in question is below: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/tmirhdee.html Mnentro 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The image of FDR in the light suit is a photo of him signing the declaration of war against Germany, not Japan. I checked this with the Library of Congress who are going to correct their own page, and who referred me to the following small photographs of the declarations of war against Japan and Germany, and which has the correct descrptions:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@1(cph+3b34942))

So does every one agree with this summary:

Dark suit, visible armband = Declaration of war against Japan per [10] and [11]

Dark suit, no armband = Lend-Lease act per Image:President Franklin D. Roosevelt-1941.jpg

Light suit = Declaration of war against Germany per [12]

Thoughts? Gdo01 19:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Mnentro 11:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Internment

I don't think this article includes any mention of the executive order for Japanese internment. I really think that is something that shouldn't be omitted (24.149.203.68 03:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Amelia)

Compliment and a Suggestion

This is outstanding work! I compared it to the encyclopedia I have at home and believe this to be better - both interesting and authoritative. I do have one suggestion. I think the Atlantic Charter needs to be more prominantly featured. Perhaps you could include a picture of FDR and Churchill on the War Ship. It was based partly on FDR's Four Freedoms and arguably the most important foreign policy declaration in American history - and one of the most important in world history. It hastened the end of colonialism. FDR had to pressure Churchill into signing it. The impact is obvious. Not only did the Third Reich and HITLER disappear - FDR won World War II - but so did colonialism. Not only that, FDR's media savvy sold this enduring idea to an entire generation of future American leaders that followed. Almost every future president until Clinton was an officer under FDR. One of them was Ronald Reagan, who declared in his autobiography that he voted for FDR four times and was impacted by his fireside chats.

Finally, a terrific biography of FDR by Jean Edward Smith is coming out in May. It has received glowing early reviews.

Again, great work on this page. Very fair, especially from the critical eye of a swing voter like me.

Relief, Recover and Reform

FDR specifically stated these goals in a fireside chat on June 28, 1934. Specifically, he stated his goal of "relief" and explained his policies. Then he stated his goal of "recovery" and explained his plans. Then he stated his goal of "reform and reconstruction" and explained his plans. This chat coined the phrase "Relief, Recovery and Reform." It is not a later interpretation by historians but FDR's stated goals. Another prominant historian noted that FDR's goal was also reallignment to build an enduring grip on power, but that's a different topic.

Vetoes

I just read at List of United States presidential vetoes that FDR had by far more vetoes than any other US president, yet also had only 12 vetoes overridden. I came here to read more and there was nothing about this in this article. Is this fact simply trivia, or is it notable enough to worth mentioning?-Andrew c 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. it would be natural he had more vetoes than any other president since he served so much longer than any other. when people think about fdr, they tend to think of (1) his leadership through the depression and (2) his leadership through wwII. if the vetoes were in the context of those, i think it's more than trivia; otherwise i think he was in office so long that a more full analysis would be needed. fyi, i am not a history expert, but am expert on congress. thanks for mentioning this...i will go to the vetoes page. Journalist1983 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Relations

This article doesn't say anything about his policy to side with Stalin over Churchill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.1.98 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC). I agree, the FDR article seems woefully incomplete without a part on his relationship (quite close) with Stalin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.245.87 (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add the links to Ido and Occitan wikipedias

[[io:Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] [[oc:Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]
Thank you,io:User:Joao Xavier, oc:User:Joao Xavier 201.0.66.117 19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

theodore didn't run for a third term

theodore roosevelt's first term as president was when Mckinely was killed and so he wouldn't it wouldn't be counted as a term from 1901-1905 because it ws Mckinely's term and when he ran in 1912 it wouldn't be his third term as president running but his 2nd and so it should be removed from the part on FDR'S third term —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codycod10 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Theodore did serve most of McKinley's term though, and when he chose not to run again in 1908, it was generally assumed as part of the 2-term tradition. When he came out of retirement to run in 1912, many people criticized him for running for a third term--Roosevelt made the same argument you did, but it certainly was an issue and the mention in the article is fair. Also, under the 22nd amendment, which postdates both Roosevelts, Theodore's fill-in term for McKinley would count as a full term and disqualify him from running again. M.Sclafani Msclafani (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error

I am not a user on wikipedia, however, there is a spelling error and it would not allow me to edit this, so here you go, it's under the economic section. The national debt, which had soared under Hoover, remained fairtly stable until the war.[26] FairTly? *fairly.

thanks. i corrected. cheers! Journalist1983 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Accidents

Just wondering how many US presidents met with illness from visiting Canada (Roosevelt in a visit to NBrunswick and Harding in BC), being a Canadian I picked it up in both articles, but find it odd a number have not faired well on their trips here. Sorry ;) ...

Interesting question. It's generally belived, however, that FDR actually contracted his illness while at a Boy Scout Encampment in New York, although he became symptomatic while in Canada.THD3 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 I have been a Tour Guide at the Roosevelt Campobello International Park for 3 years, which was Franklin's summer home since he was a boy. I have done a lot of research on Franklin and we know for a fact that he did not contract Polio in Campobello, he only fell ill with it. Polio has to be contracted from another person and there has been no other cases of Polio on the Island; in fact, the first doctor who came to help Franklin in Campobello couldn't even diagnose it properly, as he did not even know what Polio was at the time. The incubation period for Polio is most commonly 6-20 days; Franklin was not in Campobello for very long when he fell ill which concludes that his illness could not have been possibly contracted in Polio (again, keep in mind you do have to catch it from someone else). Keep in mind that back then, they travelled by train, so it took them 2 days to get to Campobello; and it is known that he was in Bear Mountain just a couple of days before he came to Campobello. While Franklin was visiting some boy scouts in Bear Mountain, New York, he decided to go for a swim with these young boys (not aware that Polio was among the boys in which he was swimming with). It was proven that some of these boys had Polio at the camp, some of which he was swimming with (which is a definite way to contract the illness); since we know the incubation period, it traces back to the exact time he was at the camp with the boys. With all of this information, it makes it clear that it was not even possible for Franklin to contract Polio in Campobello; although, it is a common misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.243.176 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New Approval Rating Graph

I made that graph, maybe you would like to put it on the page.

--Jean-Francois Landry 17:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the red background? What is the diff between green and yellow?--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The green is approval, yellow is unsure, red is disapproval...

http://137.99.36.203/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Roosevelt

--Jean-Francois Landry 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, I was looking at it in a different way. Hmmm I personally would prefer all of the numbers graphing from the x-axis up(with overlap). Input is appreciated though.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I could make a graph the way you prefer. The Approval rating article includes graphs for all U.S. President since 1937. Maybe my choice of area graph will seem more appropriate if you look at the other President's graphs. --Jean-Francois Landry 18:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

There should be some mention of the failed 1933 assassination. See Giuseppe Zangara. -- 67.98.206.2 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's be more like encyclopedia, rather than emotional journalism

Under a picture of Roosevelt, the following is written.

"Roosevelt's ebullient public personality helped bolster the nation's confidence."

Doesn't it sound like journalism article? simply emotionally in favor of Roosevelt? and not appropriate for encyclopedia?

Has anyone ever given an evidence to so-called bolstered confidence due to ebullience of the president? - Probably not.

actually most historians emphasize the point that his ebullience, self confidence, and "freedom from Fear" was a central factor in his success. It's a main theme of Kennedy Freedom from FearRjensen 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If so, it should be easy to find a citation for that and reference those statements; it should not be left in if it can't be cited properly.--Gloriamarie 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Cleanup Needed

I recommend deleting the line that reads "However, in 1945 at Yalta he abandoned his own standard when he allowed Stalin and the Soviets to annex Eastern Europe and impose 50 years of oppression and terror.". Additionally, you should put up a semi-protection tag, since I can't seem to edit it. 72.130.68.127 06:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. POV indeed. --Kristbg 12:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FDR a Freemason?

I just got done watching a special on the History Channel about the Freemason involvement in the dollar bill symbols. The program cited FDR as a freemason. Can ANYONE verify this?? RRM MBA 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Hi. I have twice removed the state flags from the infobox of this article. One of them was wrong (as FDR died in 1945 it should have been Image:GaFlag1920.gif), but in any case I don't think they added any encyclopedic value to the article. I would urge anyone wanting to replace them to do so with an encyclopedic reason for doing so. WP:FLAGCRUFT is an essay that goes into a lot more detail about why overuse of flags in this way is unhelpful to the project. --John 04:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation confusion

In the article on FDR, it is said that President Theodore Roosevelt and FDR preferred different pronunciations of their last name, FDR preferring the first syllable to be pronounced like the word 'rose', whereas Theodore preferred the 'oo' as in 'root'.

The article on Theodore Roosevelt, however, states that Theodore preferred the pronunciation like 'Rosavelt', indeed with the first syllable as in 'rose'. The authors of the article base their statement on T.R.'s own correspondence, as is apparent from the references.

Clearly something here is wrong. Either the two Roosevelts pronounced their names similarly, and the statement of different pronounciation is unfounded, or they did in fact differ in pronunciation, but the other way around, FDR preferring the 'root' sound and TR preferring 'rose'.

131.211.108.101 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some general confusion about the pronunciation of the Roosevelts' name, even within the FDR article. I've tried to find a few reliable sources for this info.

M-W gives:

Main Entry:
Roo·se·velt Pronunciation:
\ˈrō-zə-vəlt (Roosevelts' usual pron.), -ˌvelt also ˈrü-\

Dictionary.com gives:

Roo·se·velt /ˈroʊzəˌvɛlt, -vəlt, ˈroʊzvɛlt, -vəlt; spelling pron. ˈruzəˌvɛlt/

Inogolo gives this about Teddy's name:

Name: Roosevelt Phonetic Pronunciation: ROAZ-uh-velt

Notes: There has been much debate about the correct pronunciation of Roosevelt's last name, however, in several letters Theodore Roosevelt himself specifies the correct pronunciation. In a letter to the Rev. William W. Moir dated October 10, 1898 he writes:

As for my name, it is pronounced as if it was spelled "Rosavelt." That is in three syllables. The first syllable as if it was "Rose."

Note that none of these sources make a distinction between Teddy and FDR, despite the claims of some that they preferred different pronunciations. At the very least, each article should be internally consistent. For Teddy, it seems to be clear that it's /ˈɹoʊzəvɛlt/. His statement above makes that pretty clear. FDR's case doesn't seem to be as unequivocal, but the same pronunciation seems to be the preferred one in most media. The most common variant seems to be the barely noticeably different /ˈɹoʊzəvəlt/. Most seem to cite the preferred pronunciation of the name being three syllables, not two. -- χγʒ͡ʒγʋᾳ (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

lend-lease

the article states in section: Foreign policy, 1937–1941, that in contrast to WW1 loans the lend-lease arrangement required no payments after the war. Of all the countries which recieved assistance, Britain is the only country to have paid it all back, in 2006 as the wiki article on lend-lease clearly states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.198.152 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Administration

I just stumbled onto {{Infobox U.S. Cabinet}}- see it's talk page for documentation. I just updated Harry S. Truman with this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

REDIRECT [[i like a flower

]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.179.236 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

His home at Springwood (Hyde Park)

[13], [14], [15], [16].

Austerlitz -- 88.72.11.148 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

vandalism on the talk page?

I don't know if talk pages even *can* be protected, but is there some way to prevent vandals from editing this page (or at least promptly removing vandalism)? Some of the spam here is from September. Hoogli 02:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-Armament

"Roosevelt slowly began re-armament in 1938 since he was facing strong isolationist sentiment from leaders like Senators William Borah and Robert Taft who supported re-armament. " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Policies. As far as I know,Re-armament means arming the nation with weapons and fighter planes and such, now why would two isolationist Senators support Re-armament? DivineBaboon 07:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Isolationism: Hawai'i might have been isolationist, but America certainly wasn't.

Roosevelt championed re-armament and led the nation away from isolationism as the world headed into World War II. He provided extensive support to Winston Churchill and the British war effort before the attack on Pearl Harbor pulled the U.S. into the fighting.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of history could realize that the United States was certainly not isolationist prior to WW2. This becomes blatantly obvious when you consider the targets the Japanese chose, one tiny island chain located 3,000 miles in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (Hawai'i) and another island located SouthEast Asia (Philippines). It begs the question, if the United States were isolationist how in the world did they aquire such territories and maintain/defend them? Clearly the United States was an empire long before WW2. The aquisition of these territories was hotly contested by the American Anti Imperialist League.

I point this out because I remember this same fallacy being used by the Bush administration in the wake of the September 11th attacks. That we were somehow "isolationist" prior to 9/11, and therefore the only possible explanation for these attacks was that they hate our freedom. It's becomming clear now by most experts that it had mostly to do with our foreign policy, which was not even remotely similar to "isolationism." Do isolationists have troops in 130 countries? We are the very definition of empire. I don't see how one could logically argue that Rome was an empire but the United States is not, this is not POV, it's stating facts.

Anyways, the term "isolationist" should be removed completely. America was not isolationist then and it's not now. I could point to other examples if 1 colony located 3,000 miles in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and the other located in SouthEast Asia is not sufficient. Panama (canal), China (Boxer rebellion), Samoa (we almost went to war with Bismark over Samoa), etc. 206.74.245.106 (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the meaning of the word Isolationism. As defined by Wikipedia:

"Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states."

The mere possession of distant territory does not preclude the American public's opposition to intervention in World War II. This was partly a result of American contribution in World War I, which many American's felt was for naught.THD3 (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:THD3 is absolutely right, the mood of America in the 1930s was strongly isolationist insofar as avoiding entanglement in another European War was concerned. As many books have attested, isolationism was the mantra of the Republicans in Congress at the time, "America-Firsters", public figures such as Charles Lindbergh, etc. For this reason, Congress passed the military draft bill in 1940 by only a one vote margin and FDR promised in the 1940 election campaign to keep the U.S. out of WWII "save for an attack upon the U.S. itself". JGHowes ^talk - 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the term is pretty meaningless then, because in that case a country can be both isolationist and empire at the same time. If we wanted to takeover Mexico for instance, I guess that would be considered an "isolationist" policy because thats exactly what we did in Hawai'i and the Philippines. One might even consider the Roman Empire to be "isolationist" since they really didn't have any alliances with other nations, they just kept building more territory and defending it. Again, how was the war in the Philipines "avoiding all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense." That would be territorial expansion in my view. In this case the term "isolationism" is absolutely useless. 206.74.245.106 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But consider that the foreign policies and attitudes of the U.S. differed over time depending on which era we're talking about. Until the 1890s, the U.S. was preoccupied with settling the N. American continent and expanding to the Pacific Ocean (i.e., its "manifest destiny") and maintained just a small volunteer army for the western frontier (except during the Civil War, of course). The U.S. was disinterested in Europe's periodic 19th century wars, such as the Napoleonic, Crimean, and Franco-Prussian, and acquired no overseas territory not contiguous with the homeland (other than its purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867). In marked contrast, in the 1890s the U.S. entered an "imperialistic" phase, acquiring Puerto Rico and the Phillippines as the fruits of the Spanish-American War, Hawaii, and the Panama Canal Zone. After WWI, isolationist sentiment was again prominent in the U.S., even to the extent of Congress voting down membership in the League of Nations and severely cutting back the U.S. military to a small all-volunteer force. FDR saw the threat to world peace posed by fascism in the late 1930s, but most of his countrymen at the time did not. As several historians such as Martin Gilbert have written, one of FDR's greatest accomplishments as President was the aid the U.S. provided the UK in 1940-41 and the institution of a peacetime draft, despite intense opposition in Congress and strongly isolationist public sentiment during a Presidential election year. So while it would be incorrect to call the U.S. of, say, 1903 "isolationist", it would certainly be accurate to describe the U.S. of 1933-1941 as very much isolationist. JGHowes ^talk - 16:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly US foreign policy was dictated by the Monroe doctrine. However, historians debate on the traditional label of isolationist for America. I will point out that just like today, the actions of the government don't reflect the anonymous opinion of the public. The annexation of Hawaii, conquest of the Philippines, as well as the situation with Cuba and Puerto Rico, were very controversial, and not always popular. Further note that the majority opinion changes. America did not desire to enter into either World War, however, did take sides. To say America was isolationist simply means America did not want to get involved in European and Asian wars. At the same time the US wanted Germany to lose WWII and opposed Japanese aggression. These to conflicting concerns produced the actions America took. Rds865 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ERROR in CITATION of Family name pronunciation for Theodore Roosevelt

(and also lack of a citation)

this article states:

Franklin's cousin Theodore Roosevelt seemed to prefer an Anglicized spelling pronunciation of [ru:zəvɛlt], that is, with the vowel of rue or root,

The Wikipedia Article on Theodore Roosevelt states:

His last name, often mispronounced, is, per Roosevelt, "pronounced as if it were spelled 'Rosavelt.' That is in three syllables. The first syllable as if it was 'Rose.'"[2][3][4]

^ 1898 audio recording of Theodore Roosevelt announcing cavalry bugle calls in which he pronounces his own last name distinctly saying "Roosevelt's Rough Riders." To listen at the correct speed, slow the recording down by 20%.. Retrieved on 2007-07-12. ^ How to Pronounce Theodore Roosevelt. Retrieved on 2007-06-10. ^ Hart, Albert B.; Herbert R. Ferleger (1989). Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia (CD-ROM) 534–535. Theodore Roosevelt Association. Retrieved on 2007-06-10.

Also, the website inogolo (http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d227/Theodore_Roosevelt) states: Notes: There has been much debate about the correct pronunciation of Roosevelt's last name, however, in several letters Theodore Roosevelt himself specifies the correct pronunciation. In a letter to the Rev. William W. Moir dated October 10, 1898 he writes:

As for my name, it is pronounced as if it was spelled "Rosavelt." That is in three syllables. The first syllable as if it was "Rose."

Source: Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia, pages 534-535. Available online at http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/

Betcha the misconception comes from Alice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this too, so I removed the note about Theodore. Lesgles (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

IPA of 'rose-velt'

Someone should add an IPA phonetic transcription of 'rose-velt', the pronunciation attributed to Roosevelt of his own name. It'd be [roʊzvəlt]. (I'd make the change myself, but I'm not a registered user.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.146.42 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt books

Which biography on Roosevelt would you recommend? I searched on Amazon and found two interesting books: Jean Edward Smith, FDR (2007) and Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion Of Freedom (2003). Perhaps there is some others. Thank you. Funsides (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Should I take it that no one on this Wikipedia article has even read a book on FDR...? :)) Funsides (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive not read the Smith one, but the Black one is an informative account of FDR. Its approachable but may not be as comprehensive as some would like it. Still a good introduction to such a busy life. 193.130.82.253 (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seperate article for criticisms

I have noticed that the Bush article has a separate article for criticisms. Do you think we should add one for FDR. Clearly FDR did a lot of bad things including the new deal and his failings in ww2 and fighting communism. Also he did a lot of nasty things like destroy food to keep food prices high while starving people were kept at bay with guns and killed when they tried to get at the food. Not to mention the only reason the economy recovered was the war effort which he was very much against. Oh and there was the war in general, starting with the failure at Pearl Harbor, abandoning out troops and allies in the Philippines, The controversial D-day invasion and the push through France, the constant bombing of civilian populations and the lack of concern for US soldiers.. Oh I forgot the fact that he locked up Thousands of US citizens with out trial because the were of Japanese decent. We really need a critical page to illustrate how terrible this president was. Mantion (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Back when I did some work on this article, I made a point of trying to intersperse much of what was in that article into the main article for balance and perspective, so that it wouldn't just be a POV fork. It is clear from your post that you have a clear point of view about FDR, which is fine on talk pages, but, please, remember, the point here is to find supported statements about the contemporaneous criticism of FDR by others. A Musing (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole article seems to be biased in his favor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.132.134 (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You're stupid. War is not good for the economy. If the government buys a million cars and drops them into the ocean, is this good for the economy? Obviously not, but war is like this only worse. Furthermore FDR was VERY MUCH in favour of the war, and is the biggest reason why the U.S. and Japan went to war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.17.55 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He/She is not stupid; the production effort was shifted from the private sector to the "total war" concept, prompting employment and increased production.

With regards to criticism of FDR, I have noticed one glaringly missing fact; the economic recession of 1937-1938 is not mentioned at all (unless I've missed it). That recession in no way could be blamed on Herbert Hoover, but can be blamed directly on the interventionist policies of the New Deal. Futhermore, he has irreparably damaged the perception of certain American ideals. Noticed I said "perception"; he did not damage the ideals, merely the perception of them. What I am referring to is the concept that the Federal Government should be expected to "help out" or "bail" people out of their economic problems. Dependency on the government is contrary to the American ideal of individualism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NebraskaDawg (talk • contribs) 17:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

TIME Man of the Year

Although it is referenced at the bottom, it is a great accomplishment to be named TIME's 'Person of the Year' and therefore Mr. Roosevelt's accomplishment should be added to his article. It should also be footnoted at http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19330102,00.html. --Kevindkeogh (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not such a big accomplishment as all that. Especially for a USA president; it would have been astounding had he not been TIME Man of the Year at least once during his 12 years in office! -- Zsero (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that he did it three times in 9 years, I think that is an accomplishment, more than any other president. As well, all the other presidents, even those who served for 8 years, include it in their pages, its foolish not to include it for FDR. Let him be prized for all his accomplishments. --Kevindkeogh (talk)

Every single president since 1932 has won it at least once, except Ford, who wasn't in office for very long; only the articles on Truman and the current president mention it. That's 2 out of 11. I conclude that it's not typical to mention this. -- Zsero (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Governor section suggestion

Just a grammatical suggestion. The article is a bit clunky and repetitious in the first two paragraphs of "Governor of New York, 1928–1932" I'd suggest this phrasing:

Roosevelt had been careful to maintain his contacts in New York State's Democratic Party. Although he had made his name as an opponent of New York City's Tammany Hall machine, Roosevelt moderated his stance during the 1920s and eventually allied himself with Alfred E. Smith. He helped Smith win the 1922 gubernatorial election and gave nominating speeches for Smith at the 1924 and 1928 Democratic conventions.[16] As the Democratic nominee for President in 1928, Smith asked Roosevelt to succeed him as Governor. While Smith lost the Presidency in a landslide, and was even defeated in his home state, Roosevelt was elected governor by a narrow margin. As a reform governor, he established a number of new social programs, and began gathering the team of advisors he would bring with him to Washington four years later, including Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins. Njsamizdat (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Combining references

[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95]

None of those footnotes are used in more than once place. So, can we combine them all into one footnote to support his being one of the most popular or whatnot? gren グレン 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done -- Zsero (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:New Deal

A new template has been created to help organise all of the various articles relating to the New Deal. Please come and help improve/expand if you can. Thanks. LordHarris 11:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

New York State Senate

Anyone know who preceeded and succeeded FDR as a New York state senator? Sir Samuel (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All I've been able to find out is that the GOP split the vote, that there was an anti-Taft movement afoot giving his campaign more impetus, and that he never won that district in his Presidential elections. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He served 3 terms, not 4

FDR has served as president for three terms only, not four as stated at the beginning of the article. He wanted to go for a forth term but he passed away, so I think we should change that.--71.190.81.11 (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it says he was elected to four terms, which is correct. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not only elected, but inaugurated and serving in his fourth term at the time of death. JGHowes ^talk - 23:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  - I agree. He was in office and serving at thetime of his untimely death.

roosevelt served four terms, not three. Look it up anywhere-- I can almost guarantee the source will say that Roosevelt has served four terms

United Nations

Too much credit is given to FDR in "Post-War Planning" because it says "Roosevelt also discussed his plans for a postwar international organization" and "Roosevelt's plan for the United Nations." Someone make it more neutral and factual! Roosevelt's main contribution was the name! All the Allies besides the Soviets were very keen on creating the United Nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.154.168 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sickness

In the "Last days, death, and memorial" section, it says, "But mentally he was still in full command." This should be deleted. This is not true and another idealization. He had hypertensive encephalopathy, a condition where one does at best not think clearly. His unclear mind made him give up a lot at the Yalta Conference, especially since Stalin new about his frail condition. Whether you agree with this or not, this article shouldn't portray him so much as a perfect hero, but instead objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.154.168 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of FDR's role in the extending the great depression?

Government intervention in the economy is the primary reason why the great depression lasted so much longer than previous recessions had. Why is there no discussion of how policies like paying farmers to kill pigs and absurd price controls that meant store keeps couldn't sell their goods without losing money prolonged the great depression and brought misery to millions of people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.17.55 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it didn't? His raising taxes (believing, like most most politicians at the time, in a balanced budget) did... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FDR's policies absolutely extended the depression, in fact, we experienced a recession during the depression. What was the worst situation imaginable, actually became worse five years after he took office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NebraskaDawg (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all you aren't providing a source to back up the claim. That'll be the first reason someone will remove it. Personaly I suspect your source is some right-wing propaganda, but if you have a legitimate source, you should set it out so people can decide whether it ought to be included.Ekwos (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gonna fly now

I understand he was 1st Pres to fly while in office. What date? Where to? Worth including? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC

Early Life, Alpha Delta Phi fraternity

FDR was not a member of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity. While studying at Harvard, FDR was a member of the Fly Club, a spinoff of ADP that had severed all ties with the national organization decades before FDR joined. Dinosaur331 (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)