Talk:Paralytic illness of Franklin D. Roosevelt

message: I remember seeing a news report about a statue of Roosevelt that was controversial for featuring him in a wheelchair. I have no other detail other than that, but perhaps a picture of it would help the article. If anybody has any information on it, please let us know. - Throw 03:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a section about the wheelchair statue controversy and included an image of it in the Legacy section. --Pithon314 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Roosevelt statue

message: New Brunswick is not in the northeastern United States. It is next door in Canada. If polio was in epidemic in southeastern Canada, that would be a much more relevant thing to say in the article.220.253.150.84 12:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polio epidemic in northeastern United States

message: I have restored the section regarding FDR being stricken with Spanish Influenza in 1918 and added a request for citation.  I have read several biographies which mention FDR being stricken with "a strain of unfluenza" while touring the front in Europe and being brought home on a stretcher.  (It was during this time that Eleanor, unpacking FDR's luggage, discovered a pack of letters from Lucy Mercer.)  But I haven't read any sources which state it was Spanish Flu - thus the citation request.THD3 (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After the material was removed for a second time by an anonymous editor, I have again restored the material and tweaked the verbiage.  I have also send a note to the editor who added the material requesting a citation from a reliable source.  If no such citation is added by July 23, 2010, I will remove the paragraph in question.THD3 (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the remover. Thanks for the note to the talk page. I think you are missing the point, and bending over backwards way too much. Perhaps the edit was not vandalism. It's certainly very sloppy and uninformed. I called it vandalism because it had so many obvious problems. 1) The editor said FDR "succumbed". That means "died"! FDR did not die of the flu in 1918. You kindly changed that to "suffered from". But in doing so you are ignoring a giant red flag waving in your face. 2) The extensive article on Spanish Flu says nothing about "many Spanish Flu sufferers experienced profound immunological, neurological, and physiological sequelae". And the editor gave no citation. So, beyond just citing that FDR had Spanish flu, the editor would first need to first revise the Spanish Flu article concerning the "profound sequelae", and keep it stable a while. The FDR illness article is not the appropriate forum to determine if Spanish flu had profound sequelae (which is plausible, but show me the evidence). 3) I am not aware of any evidence that FDR actually suffered any sequelae from Spanish flu. So again, beyond just citing that FDR had Spanish flu, the editor would need to provide a citation that FDR actually suffered sequelae. If he didn't suffer sequelae, the connection is just speculation, as well as original research. 4) The editor proposes that these "profound sequelae" "arose years later". That's not so plausible, and again with no citation or mention in the Spanish flu article, so again original research (speculation). Maybe you're trying to be nice, but I wouldn't encourage sloppy editing, uncited assertions, and original research. 174.31.152.161 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed the 1918 illness as described in several books, including Geoffrey Ward's A First Class Temperament, and Conrad Black's Champion of Freedom.  Most are pretty vague about FDR's 1918 illness, either calling it "a strain of influenza" or "double pneumonia."  Based on the lack of definitive documentation, I am removing the paragraph in question.THD3 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking the references and removing the paragraph. 174.31.140.173 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FDR & Spanish Flu

message: I'm surprised to see that in this article, and List of poliomyelitis survivors and Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness and probably several others in Wikipedia, it is now almost stated as fact that Roosevelt's polio diagnosis was false. While this may be true, the basis for this revisionist diagnosis is one study and the emphasis given to it seems excessive. --Crunch (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any basis to say the emphasis is excessive. 1) Do you really think your being surprised is a basis for saying emphasis is excessive? People are usually surprised when something they believed for years, but never critically examined, turns out to be probably false. I'm sure you would agree there are countless examples of people being surprised at new information. They eventually get over it. Or the old generation dies off, and the new generation is able to accept new information. 2) In this case, if you think a little, you will not be surprised there is only one study, and will see that is no basis to say emphasis is excessive. Laboratory research can be replicated in other labs to verify a publication. That's not the case here. If you tried to publish a paper saying "Using the same methods, we have confirmed the results of this study on FDR's illness", nobody would publish it, because it's not a confirmation or new information to just carry out the same statistical analysis. In contrast, you could publish a study saying "We have refuted the results of this study on FDR's illness". But none of the many who have expressed surprise or skepticism have done so. Why not? Perhaps because once they actually read the paper, they realized that Roosevelt's polio diagnosis probably was false. It's easy to express unsubstantiated opinions. But that's not how science works. If someone thinks a finding or theory is false, it's their responsibility to publish a refutation. And not try to publish original research on wikipedia. Alternatively, you could publish a paper saying "Using different methods, we have confirmed the results of this study on FDR's illness". But what would the other methods be? So, until someone publishes a refutation or finds new evidence, it makes perfect sense there is only one publication on the nature of FDR's paralytic illness. It's not a problem there is just one publication, as long as that one is valid. 174.31.152.161 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not even remotely how scientific papers work.  Typically either a scientist comes up with a study idea and shops it around for funds, or an organization comissions a study of their choosing.  Most scientists can't just decide to do a study to refute someone else's work. --  Alyas Grey : talk 07:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   And the focus on GBS does seem really excessive to me.  This is the only example I know of that's suggested it would be anything other than polio, but then polio is treated like it may as well be flat-earth theory. I'd argue that considering the respective recovery rates for both diseases, polio certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. --  Alyas Grey : talk 07:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I disagree on both counts: 1) Scientific papers refute other's work all the time. There are countless examples. 2) Where is polio treated like 'flat-earth theory'? That straw man argument totally fails.  71.212.53.121 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the original poster that it's wildly undue weight to devote more time in this article to the GBS possibility than polio. I've been reading a lot of Roosevelt history the past few weeks while improving the Eleanor R. article, and the books I have all describe it definitively as polio. So does the FDR presidential library.  A single dissenting study should not get the emphasis it does. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with Crunch and Khazar2--way too much weight is given to one outlying opinion. YoPienso (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polio False Diagnosis Now Fact? 

message: I'm tagging the section as undue as it gives almost no discussion of the cases supporting polio, devoting a measly three sentences.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue tag 

message: Yesterday i came online after hearing the GBS hypothesis on a crappy history channel show, and wanted to know just how legit it was.  Well, I am still not entirely sure, but based on the article after initial reading I had no idea.  The section jumps around from different author to different author, painfully and obviously delineated where the point of view changes. Additionally the different authors wrote in such a hostile way towards the others' pet diagnosis.  To be honest, it was like a schizophrenic or multiple-personality disorder was writing an essay.  And the repeating!  Within a span of about 25 lines, the fact that FDR had a fever of 102 degrees was repeated three times! And in only one of those times was any kind of context of "Why do we care that FDR had a fever, and what does that mean to the topic at hand" addressed at all.  Various sections were clearly inserted as rebuttals to other sections, which gives the impression of disfunction.  I had to check and make sure i hadnt stumbled upon the talk page.
Just now I did a ROUGH revision attempting to consolidate the two points of view into a more coherent narrative.  Please note, I did not include any original assertions or new content (other than my own rewording of others assertions). I did not have time to check and make sure the references previous editors included actualy say what they are supposed to say, and simply took them at their word.  Additionally, there are gobs of unsourced assertions that for a controversial topic like this really need to be sourced if they are going to be included.  I hope khazar is still monitoring this page because he seems to know how to do this better than I do.
After reading through the talk page and article up to this point, i think I would categorize the GBS hypothesis as this:  A minority viewpoint, but not a fringe viewpoint. This probably makes its mention warranted, but tempered to make clear the current consensus.  My edit just now tries to do that, without falling into talk-page style colloqial language showing open hostility to the minority view. The open discussion of pros and cons however might border on original research though... thoughts anyone? If this section were to be fixed, I think this article would be reasonably helpful to future readers interested in FDR.  -Paul (on desktop) 12/14/13 around 7:30 PM 96.41.90.226 (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  a year later happening upon GBS vs polio 

message: There is a picture caption in this article which states "One of only three known photographs of Roosevelt in a wheelchair". However, in the Wikipedia article "Franklin D. Roosevelt" there is a sentence which states "Only two photographs taken of FDR while he was in his wheelchair are known to exist;" Bunkyray5 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for drawing attention to this — I've seen four photos. Given the ongoing search for still images as well as film clips, I've revised the language here and at the main FDR article to remove definitive numbers and reflect that they are rare. — WFinch (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between Wikipedia articles re: pictures of FDR in a wheelchair 

message: In the History section of the article, I've restored the Timeline subsection that was removed by a previous editor after this article was edited as part of the Wiki Education Foundation course assignment. As I noted in the edit summary when I restored it, some of the sourced content conflicts with recent changes. Rather than delete the information, I think a better solution would be to incorporate the bullet points in the Timeline into the new subsections within the History section. — WFinch (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030919130613/http://www.rooseveltrehab.org/ to http://www.rooseveltrehab.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Vincent van Gogh's health which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial IMG 2228.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: It's interesting that Roosevelt was at a large gathering where food would have been served and lots of kids were present prior to the onset of his illness. The polio virus is spread by the fecal-oral route and kids in those days, when polio was fairly common, often carried the virus with no symptoms. Could Roosevelt have ingested it in food prepared by someone who was a carrier and didn't wash their hands after using the toilet? The time between the jamboree and the onset of symptoms is just about right for polio. Interesting. 47.138.89.140 (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Scout jamboree