Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 4

message: This article could be used as a textbook example of "what's wrong with Wikipedia." Since I wrote the current version in April 2005, it has steadily deteriorated in quality and coherence under the impact of many random edits. Its grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation have declined. Sections have been removed for no apparent reason. Irrelevant digressions and contradictory statements have been added. Factual statements have been changed to non-factual ones. Myths, opinions and conspiracy theories have crept back in. So now I have had to come back and redo much of what I did last year. I don't mind doing so, but this should not be necessary, and of course I can't keep doing so for the rest of time. Adam 06:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam's problem is that he distrusts the Wiki system of slow improvements. If he wants to challenge any changes he should do it here before erasing other people's work--that's called vandalism in the Wiki world. So I suggest he go through his changes one by one and see how good they are. 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Adam--the Wiki system calls for lots of people to join together. Some of them in fact are experts in American history, but we do welcome any Australian contributions. Your analysis of 1932 Democrats for example is wrong--where did you get it? Check the bibliography again (I provided nearly all those sources, by the way). Rjensen 06:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, well I confess my grammar and spelling are imperfect. I will be glad to corect your misstatements one by one. Starting with the misinterpretation of 1932, and your ignoring the interregum. Rjensen 07:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What claim? That the EB said what it said? I have quoted it. That the claim is untrue? This is common knowledge. Cite my source for what? Adam 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EB is no longer a good reference source.  Before the 1980s they had experts write their articles but now most are written by freelancers who do 20-50 articles at a time on a variety of subjects. The freelancers do not pretend to be experts and they don't say what sources they use.  So it's no longer verifiable info.  Recent comparisons with Wiki show EB full of errors. (As is Wiki).  EB has no good way of removing errors but Wiki does. There are plenty of solid books that can be used--see the bibliography. Rjensen 01:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of article

message: ^
::Answer: Hyde Park, New York NoSeptember talk 02:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Roosevelt buried? 

message: The old version was full of useless details (for example the detailed rules regarding gold), and incorrect information (it is not true that 1/3 were unemployed). The WPA was falsely presented as a 1933 program when it was 1935--a very important difference.  The CCC employed 250,000, not "millions".  It had too much detail on events not directly connected to FDR (such as details of Supreme Court decisions or NRA or industrial production data or how historians evaluate the overall New Deal statistics) that are best covered elsewhere.  The long Glass quote is not very meaningful (Glass never before or after showed an interest in protecting poor orphans).
This is a bio of FDR. There is a full article on the New Deal.
The jokes ought to go in the TRIVIA section, not main body--such as the good joke about gold and booze.
It is important to mention Harry Hopkins in 1933. Rjensen 00:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all of your deletions were unjustified. I'm putting them some of the things you deleted back in. RJII 00:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, stop your personal attacks. I'm not a "crank." And, as I stated I will go on including sourced, relevant information. That's the way Wikipedia works. But, you're the one in the wrong. There is nothing trivial about the fact that FDR confiscated private gold (and that he decided on a 21 cent price based on "lucky numbers.") There is nothing trivial that the AAA and NRA were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is nothing trivial that he raised incomes taxs up to 90% on the top income bracket, and then proposed a 99.5% tax which failed. There is nothing trivial about the fact that he issued an Executive Order to tax all incomes over $25,000 100%! I'm sorry if this stuff tarnishes the Roosevelt myth, but it's the truth and it needs to be told. That's one of the great things about Wikipedia --we're able to tell the whole story instead of the "official" censored version of events. RJII 23:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it's still of political interest today. The odds of a Wikipedia article attracting POV merchants are directly proportional to those of its topic starting an argument in at least one bar or house of parliament anywhere in the developed world. ～J.K. 10:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The facts are fine, but I think that external links to opinionated articles in the web are clear violations of the wikipedia neutrality principle. ChS 01:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why I deleted poor quality info 

message: Why is it being deleted by Rjensen and Adam that FDR ordered private gold be turned in for paper money?  This is EXTREMELY notable. RJII 16:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with you. It's directly connected to FDR. FDR signed the order. He's the one that stole Americans' gold. I don't see how anyone could think that is not notable. Enough of this censorship. RJII 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And, no that is not part of the "new deal." That and the devaluation was simply one of the ways he obtained money to help pay for the "new deal." RJII 17:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's really important write an article explaining what happened, tell all sides of the controversy, mention the Supreme Court case, and give some references. If it's not important enough for an article then it should not get mentioned in bio of FDR. remember: NO POV.  Rjensen 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What?? There are lots of facts in this article that don't have an article of their own. What are you talking about "NO POV"?  How is it POV to mention a FACT? It's not. Deleting fact because you don't like they reveal is what's POV. RJII 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII writes (today) of FDR that "He's the one that stole Americans' gold." I suggest RJII is calling FDR a thief--or am I misreading that?.  That is POV and is not allowed in Wiki.  RJII should be able to explain the importance of the gold issue in a separate article, or else the readers will be utterly baffled by cryptic comments in a bio of FDR (there were of course many other government officials, bankers, etc involved in the gold decisions).  To go beyond POV, RJII migh ask the question: was the gold policy good or bad for most Americans, and for the economy? Who was hurt by it?  Who was helped? What did the courts say about it? What did the congress say? He migh also tell us what sources he is using so we can help him evaluate them Rjensen 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not realize that there is a difference between the article and the talk page? Of course he was a thief. I can be as POV as I want to be on the talk page. All I'm saying is that it needs to be noted in the article that FDR ordered Americans to turn in their gold for paper money. You need to stop deleting sourced and notable information. 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No POV. If you think a person is a thief, you should start your own blog. But please don't put POV into Wiki. You might read the Surpreme Court decisions upholding the law at and tell us where the Court went wrong. Rjensen 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get it do you? I'm not saying I want it to state in the article that FDR was a thief. That's just my personal opinion. What I am saying is that I want it to state that FDR ordered that Americans turn in their gold for paper money. Stop censorship the information. RJII 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why mention it in a bio--it belongs under New Deal. There were so many other things happening that were quite important. The president signed thousands of orders written by Treasury, State, War department etc that he did not write. They are not part of his biography. Rjensen 19:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not part of the New Deal. "Hey I've got a new deal for you. I'm taking your gold!" RJII 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What studies are you relying upon? Rjensen 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not relying on any studies. It's not a matter of studies. It's just a matter of reporting the facts. FDR ordered that people turn in their gold and get paper money in return. RJII 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a "crank." Stop your personal attacks. But, you have explained why the article is of such low quality now. And, you're free to remove information, just as I'm free to put it back in. I happen to enjoy Sisyphian tasks, and can continue indefinitely. But, you're wrong to remove sourced, notable, relevant information. We'd all appreciate it if you were more reasonable. RJII 02:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When statements are challenged they have to be backed by sources. So will RJii please tell us the sources he is using so we can evaluate them and not him. Rjensen 02:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My source is Executive Order 6102. I've already stated the source in the article. You deleted it. RJII 02:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I found the text of the Order in an article for you. Here you go:  RJII 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good move. the link doesn't belong. Rjensen 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold seizure

message: There were 48 states and delaware was #48 to close
 
Rjensen 02:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Restrictions" doesn't meant closure. The states varied in their orders for a holiday. Some were closed and some were open with deposit restrictions, etc. RJII 02:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: all banks were "closed" in the sense they could not give out money. Most banks kept "open" in the sense that tellers were on duty to explain to people what was going on. also people could come in and use their safe deposit boxes. See detailed stories in NY  Times every day. Rjensen 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. Some just had deposit restrictions. I provided a source.  RJII 02:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every bank closed March 4 1933 

message: Rjensen has put this in the article: "After January 1934 he then devalued the international value of the dollar by 40% in terms of gold, hoping to stimulate exports. [Freidel 1990 p 101-2]"  I'd like to see the exact quote from that source so we can verify if you've interpreted it correctly. Does it actually say that that was FDR's intent? Let's see a quote. Thanks. RJII 02:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Friedel wasn't a proper source for that then, right? RJII 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freidel summarized FDR's statements. p 101 mentions cotton and wheat sales for example and the heavy pressure from rural senators. Rjensen 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: need source for intent of devaluation

message: Note that the conservative Federalist-Society / Wall Street Journal ranking of presidents in 2000 put FDR as #3 see  Rjensen 20:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that no economists were surveyed.  RJII 05:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should ridicule the Wall Street Journal for its ignorance of economics.  But hey: when FDR took office in March 1933 the Fed index of industrial production was: 100.0
*after 4 years (March 1937) 219.8  doubled!!!
*after 8 years (March 1941) 280.1
*after 12 years (March 1945) 426.9  he QUADRUPLED the industrial economy!!!! Pretty impressive numbers. Meanwhile unemployment fell from 25% in March 33 to 2% in 1945. If you live by numbers you have to praise by the numbers. Rjensen 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The results are not the opinion of the Wall Street Journal. It's the results of a survey that was conducted in conjunction with the Federalist Society. RJII 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential ranking 

message: Franklin Roosevelt was the preaident of course. HE was the 32nd president. I was bit suprised he died of the death. Just to tell you.
:You're not the only one who's surprised that someone died of the death.  JackofOz 00:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franklin Roosevelt 

message: The IPA pronunciation for Delano is frustrating. I'm a fairly intelligent guy (or so I like to think), but I can't make sense of it. Some of the symbols in [dıleınoυ] don't appear to be on the IPA chart for English, i.e. the [oυ]. I mostly bring this up because it's nagging me. How the hell do you pronounce it?--Cúchullain t c 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had never seen that pronunciation before reading this article (generally you hear Delano rendered [ˡdɛlənoʊ]).  I'm not 100% sure what they're going for here, since ı is not IPA (while i and ɪ are), but it's either deelayno (dīlānō, as many American dictionaries would explain it) if 'i' is what ı is supposed to be, or dilayno (short i, like 'city,' dǐlānō in American dictionary pronunciation guides). No stress is indicated, and since the popular pronunciation of Delano is apparently inaccurate the stress may fall on the wrong syllable in the popular pronunciation, too.  I'm not familiar with this pronuncaition; could someone clear these two points up? JordeeBec 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone mistook pseudo-Greek IPA letters for actual IPA. [ı] and [υ] should probably be [ɪ] and [ʊ] respectively but I can't be sure, because in proper IPA [ʋ] actually represents a consonant sound which doesn't exist in English (a labiodental approximant, the unusual "w" sound you hear from some German speakers). Frankly, I'm tempted to remove the whole thing as it stands as an unsourced irrelevancy, but a pronunciation for his name would be useful — I can't be the only one who can never remember if it's "rose"evelt or "ruse"evelt. ～J.K. 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Overenthusiastic techies; can't live with 'em, can't live without them. I generally find it less bad than the other options, but here the pseudo-English will do fine. ～J.K. 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, his name was pronounced Rose-velt. Roose-velt has always been a common mispronunciation but his name was Dutch and in the Dutch language "oo" is pronounced with a very open "oh" sound. --Revolución hablar ver 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's obviously ridiculous that a double "o" might be pronounced like a long version of a single "o". ;-) ～J.K. 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delano

message: The article quotes freedom and makes it looks like he thought the New Deal was a good idea, but he doesn't. The quote I provided says this: "Roosevelt's policies were very destructive. Roosevelt's policies made the depression longer and worse than it otherwise would have been. What pulled us out of the depression was the natural resilience of the economy and WW2." I feel if you're going to quote, him this much should be clear. And, he definitely should be quoted as he's one of the most respected economists alive. RJII 04:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "By 1935, the New Deal was in its second year and still gaining steam.  In later years, Rose and I came to be among the best-known critics of the growth in centralized government that the New Deal initiated.  Yet, ironically, the New Deal was a lifesaver for us personally.  The new government programs created a boom market for economists, especially in Washington." 
He goes on to discuss how it got them jobs in an anti-semitic environment, and he continues to the statement that has been provided out-of-context.  Any fool can see that he was reflecting on his past [seemingly ironic] ignorance at the time he was starting his career.  The whole chapter in which he was misquoted was a reflection on how FDR's trashing of the economy was great, for him and other economists.  He goes on to prove it with statements such as the one you quoted.  Mark 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Friedman quote removed - Friedman misrepresented

message: Roosevelt held a speech in 1942 were he among other things stated: "If there is anyone who still wonders why this war is being fought, let him look to Norway. If there is anyone who has any delusions that this war could have been averted, let him look to Norway; and if there is anyone who doubts the democratic will to win, again I say, let him look to Norway." and "any nation seeking to resist tyranny and build democracy need only 'Look to Norway'"
This was an important motivational boost to the German-occupied Norwegian people and resistance during WW2. It has since been quoted numerous times. A Google for "Look to Norway" gives 11400 hits. I suppose this was mostly noticed by Norwegians, but I wonder if the speech is totally unknown in the US or elsewere? Does anyone have info on this? If so could it be added to the article if it is deemed notable enough? Inge 12:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had read 'most everything on FDR and don't recall anyone mentioning that speech. If it had an impact in Europe it should be included. Rjensen 13:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some hits from the US I could find on Google: Duluth Superior article, Quoted in a speech by President Clinton, US Department of State magazine. It certainly had an impact amongst Norwegians. Inge 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Norway!! That must've been back in them days before Norway was part of NATO, ie. part of the worst arms rase ever.--Ezeu 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1942 Norway was occupied by Germany. Roosevelt was referring to the unprovoced attack by the Germans, the Norwegian will for peace and democracy and the steadfast resistance from the Norwegian government and people. I suppose it was also a kick against those in the US who still argued against US involvement in the war. NATO was established four years after the war, in 1949.  Inge 09:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Look to Norway"-speech 

message: I believe this to be a "Good Article" on it's way to being a featured article, it looks like it's been forgotten about. Compliments to the editors. SeanMack 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: I will not accept the repeated removal of the "early life" section and its replacement by the illiterate rubbish that was included in its place. I have restored this section and will go on doing so as often as it is deleted. Adam 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life

message: I'd like to change the second and third paragraphs under "Private crisis" section to the following two paragraphs (just the text is shown below, I will fix up the references):
"In August 1921, while the Roosevelts were vacationing at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Roosevelt contracted an illness characterized by: fever; protracted symmetric, ascending paralysis of the upper and lower extremities; facial paralysis; bladder and bowel dysfunction; numbness; and dysesthesia. The symptoms gradually resolved except for paralysis of the lower extremities. The unquestioned diagnosis at the time was paralytic poliomyelitis, which was fitting because polio was epidemic in the  northeastern United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Yet his age (39 years) and many features of the illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune peripheral neuropathy). A peer-reviewed study published in 2003, using Bayesian analysis, found that six of eight posterior probabilities favored a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome over poliomyelitis. Regardless of the cause, the result was that Roosevelt was totally and permanently paralyzed from the waist down. He could sit up and, with aid of leg braces, stand upright, but could not walk.
Although the paralysis (whether from poliomyelitis or Guillain-Barré syndrome) had no cure at the time, for the rest of his life Roosevelt refused to accept that he was permanently paralyzed. He tried a wide range of therapies, but none had any effect. Nevertheless, he became convinced of the benefits of hydrotherapy, and in 1926 he bought a resort at Warm Springs, Georgia, where he founded a hydrotherapy center for the treatment of polio patients which still operates as the Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation (with an expanded mission). Furthermore, after he became President, he helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that supported the rehabilitation of victims of paralytic polio and the discovery of the polio vaccines."
Since this is a major change, and since the new information casts doubt on the previously countlessly repeated and unquestioned assertion that Roosevelt's paralysis was caused by polio, I thought it would be good idea to start a discussion thread to give a chance for others to disagree. 
Big change is factual information initially described in a peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Medical Biography , of which I was a co-author and which I can add as a reference in the Roosevelt article. Also, information on Roosevelt's work related to polio is added. Also, several unreferenced statements that are peripheral at best (historians speculate, escape from mother) are deleted. The edited section is about the same length and more factually correct. I have tried to retain as much of the original as possible.
I would ask anyone who objects to the changes to please read the published article  first.
In the future, to help shorten the Roosevelt article and provide more information on Roosevelt's paralytic illness, I would be willing to further shorten this section within the main article and start a separate article on Roosevelt's paralytic illness.
Dagoldman 06:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of Roosevelt's paralysis 

message: The allied alliance had been in existence effectively since Britain and France allied with Poland in 1939 and Neville Chamberlain declared that Britain and France would offer all support in their power to Poland, Greece and Romania. Whatever you want to take as the exact date of the formation of the Allies in the second world war, it was certainly in 1939. Therefore Roosevelt cannot have been their leader as it says in this article as America did not join the war until 1941. I would appreciate comments on this and if people agree a change to the wording to reflect this fact. A very good article on this topic is available on this Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II.
::Roosevelt funded the war before the US entered--and thereby shaped the policies. Britain would have surrendered without massive US $$$ and munitions (as well as ships). USSR got the same help after it was invaded (whether Stalin needed it as much as Churchill is debatable.) Rjensen 13:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to me that constitutes "leading the allies." 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the allies consisted of a lot of countries--like Australia, Canada, Britain, Free France, Norway, Brazil, China, etc in addition to USSR. FDR was the leader for all except the USSR which was mostly independent (and thus barely an ally) Rjensen 04:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't explain why you think funding the war behind the back of Congress and the American People before finally goading Japan into war constitutes "leading the allies." 206.124.31.221 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there was plenty of secret diploacy but ALL funding was approved by Congress before and after 1941. no exceptions. As for the poor goaded Japanese, they should have cooperated with their neighbors better. Rjensen 05:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I said nothing conciliatory toward the Japanese—only pointed to the goading.  You still haven't indicated why his behavior constituted "leading the allies."  It seems to me Churchill lead the allies. 206.124.31.221 05:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lots of merit--FDR in fact simultaneously led the allies and tried to keep the US out of combat. That's been well known for 65 years so welcome to the world of history!! His goal was to advance the USA and most people think he did pretty well--except for the Nazis and Japanese who liked him even less  than some American critics. Rjensen 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I knew he was a hypocrite, but for the sake of the point I was supposing he wasn't.  This wasn't the only thing he was a hypocrite about. 206.124.31.221 05:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hypocrisy"--my that's a weak complaint to make against a historical figure who got things done. You want him to tell the enemy what the plans are? Rjensen 05:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh well...I guess you could euphemistically call what he did "getting things done."  You can blow off the claim of hypocrisy too, but you basically agreed he was being a hypocrite.  I guess there are a lot of people who agree with the concept that "the ends justify the means."  Too bad their weren't any (good) results from "taking action." 206.124.31.221 05:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roosevelt leading the allies

message: I keep on deleting that piture with Roosevelt and the Saudi King but someone keeps on putting it back up. I think every picture on a Wiki article is a picutre that should have significant meaning. But that picutre has no meaning or purpose to be put up their what so ever. Is the person who keeps on putting it back up trying to prove a point?
::it's a very important picture. FDR went to the Middle East and promised that if the King supported WW2 the US would protect his kingdom. That promise is still in effect and the cornerstone of US policy in region--Bush did go to war in 1991 to fulfill the promise. Rjensen 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, the picture is significant.  I'm not sure if was taken at/around Cairo, Teheran or Yalta.  Once facet of significance is WHY would FDR be meeting with a Saudi King, a seemingly (at the time) insignificant player since while oil had been found, it was not being produced during WWII.  Clearly (in hindsight) aligning Saudia Arabia with the US was already under serious consideration even in WWII. DEddy 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Photo was taken on a US warship on the ocean somewhere near Egypt. Rjensen 02:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt with Saudi Arabia King 

message: The "talk" page began with a "what's wrong with Wikipedia" screed.  The "authors" of this article typify what's wrong with Wikipedia.  It cannot hope to be unbiased when authoritarians go running around creating tight edits of their version of "the truth" because they're afraid of opposing opinions.  BTW, I have no "ownership" issues here, as I have neither written a word of the article nor edited a word.  I am also neither Republican nor Democrat.  I'm calling the disgusting politics I'm seeing. (signed after the fact) Mark 206.124.31.221 04:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for proving my point