Talk:Four Freedoms

message: I have removed the claim that "freedom from fear" is a call for world disarmament. In fact, in this very speech FDR called for "a swift and driving increase in our armament production." - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I take it back. Both are in the speech. Remarkable. The disarmament remark is covered later in the article, which is probably where it belongs, not in the lead. - Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World disarmament?? 

message: What is the basis for "(or right to dissent)"? I don't think it is in FDR's speech. While this is one view of freedom of speech, we should not go putting words in his mouth. Certainly there are speech issues unrelated to political dissent. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right to dissent is a sub-set of freedom of speech.  If this were Wikisource, then the article would have F.D. Roosevelt's speech word for word.  However, this article is intended to expound on the four freedoms.--Patchouli 05:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not supposed to "expound" on them. It's supposed to be an accurate representation of what Roosevelt said. This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay. - Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right to dissent? 

message: The first two freedoms FDR listed are freedoms, as they are based on an absence of restraints.  The second two are not freedoms at all.  What they mean is "Security from", despite saying "Freedom from".  Security and freedom are opposites.  Freedom comes at the cost of security, and security comes at the cost of freedom.  The way these so called "Four Freedoms" are written attempts to confuse this basic trade-off.  Unfortunately it did a very good job of confusing it.64.252.128.11 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, FDR specifically called them freedoms. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an interpretive essay. Personal opinions aren't relevant. I'd also like to point out that "freedom from" is perfectly fine in front of all four freedoms. Not surprising, since Roosevelt's speeches were professionally written. --MissMeticulous (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, it is important to add a section to the page discussing the controversy surrounding such ideas as the freedom from want and the freedom from fear. Many people in fact fear the idea of these "freedoms" being provided by the government as they are socialistic and restrictive and are viewed as placing large amounts of power in the hands of government.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.212.158 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this article is about Roosevelt's speech and its repercussions at the time -- it's not about general philosophical issues. AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

text: In any case, constitutionality would only be relevant if he was proposing specific laws to be enacted by Congress, rather stating broad general aspirations... AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Freedoms, two Lies 

message: The last two freedoms are consistent with the US Constitution. In the Preamble, the US Constitution says "We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Clearly, the latter two freedoms draw their Constitutional force from the goal of promoting the "general Welfare."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.51 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, constitutionality would only be relevant if he was proposing specific laws to be enacted by Congress, rather stating broad general aspirations... AnonMoos (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Two Freedoms 

message: Hi, I just listed :File:Save Freedom of Speech.png used in this article at WP:PUI because someone changed the tagging to claim the image is in the public domain; I hope you'll join the discussion. Unfortunately, in order to not be deleted as a result of that if the result is "non-free", it will need a fair use rationale written for the articles it is used in; I'd do it myself but I'm not really familiar enough with the image to know what specifically the rationale is. Anomie⚔ 20:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Save Freedom of Speech.png]] 

message: Although the article is correct when it says "His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional US Constitutional values protected by its First Amendment" one must remember that the preamble to the Constitution also says that the government is formed to "promote the general welfare." 98.69.195.251 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the 1930's, the federal government's role in promoting the general welfare was mostly considered to be confined to establishing a stable framework of laws, economic policies, and peaceful foreign relations within which trade and economic growth could flourish.  The national government did take a hand in infrastructure projects or "internal improvements" (though even this involvement was sometimes controversial), but it did not have any role in day-to-day "relief" or ensuring individual living standards (and most "relief" tended to be quite local in nature).  AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom from Want 

message: "His turtle of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional US Constitutional values...."
Surely "turtle" is a typo of some sort?
I would suggest that an editor change this to, e.g., "his advocacy of...", "his inclusion of...", or the like  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.174.179 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turtle"?? 

message: I've removed the sentence "The Four Freedoms Tour raised over $130,000,000 in war bond sales." after trying to confirm the citation and discovering two sources that conflict. 
Time Magazine's article "Gap Narrowed", May 24, 1943, v.41, issue 21, states the amount raised specifically by the Second War Loan Drive (which I believe, but can't confirm, is the drive that featured the paintings) as being $18,533,000,000. Although it seems to be a typo, two other sentences in the short article also refer to "billions" of dollars. However, this is an html transcript and not a scan of the original article. If anyone has access to an original copy of this article, scanned or on microform, you can check to see whether the html was accidentally mis-transcribed somehow. 
The other source is Laura Claridge's book Norman Rockwell: A Life, published in 2001 by Random House. Page 313 states the income for the tour of the Four Freedoms paintings raised $133 million. 
Since this is not a fact critical to understanding the overall topic of the article, I suggest leaving this sentence out until the amount of income, and which War Loan Drive featured the paintings, can be confirmed.--Laurelivy (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount raised by touring the paintings in support of War Bonds in 1943 

message: For those who haven't noticed, a large portion of this article has been written from the perspective of critics of the Four Freedoms, with many of the interpretations of Libertarian thinkers predominating. While there's nothing wrong with writing the critiques of Roosevelt (quite the contrary) these should be listed explicitly as critiques and not embedded in the background discussion of the concept. --173.59.126.219 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian Propaganda 

message: without which a free society is not possible: 
1st: freedom of speech, including the freedom to spread the word in print and broadcast;  
2nd: freedom of assembly; 
in rooms and open spaces; without government control.
3rd: freedom of association, 
i.e. any kind of association, 
for leisure activities, religious activities, trade unions, political parties, comercial, 
and so on. L.Willms (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to correct FDR? AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 3 fundamental political freedoms 

message: The example of FDR authorizing the internment of Americans of Japanese descent feels more like cherry-picked editorializing rather than a subject heading whose inclusion is dictated by good standards of third-party reference materials. Would anyone disagree? 96.244.45.174 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Violation" as Editorializing