Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 1

message: The box shows his profession as attorney. I believe politician would be more appropriate.  He was involved in politics and public service almost continually for 30 years.  His legal employment seems to be "working for a Wall Street firm" from 1908 to 1913.  I was a paper boy longer than that but don't think I should be biographed as a "news distributor".
Comments?Pmeisel 01:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  profession 

message: I just made some extremely significant revisions to the page - though I changed little data, I did flesh out the critical perspective of whether Roosevelt may have had knowledge of Pearl Harbor ahead of time.
I rephrased many, many lines, and trimmed the part about the four freedoms speech in 1941 from the World war two section.
I added information on a critical perspective of the court packing action and the internment, and removed subjective language in several places.
While most of the information presented already existed in the page in a different format, I am very knowledgable about the events of world war two, and much of the modification was from memory. I believe that it is critically important to find references for the factual information that's presented in the article Especially:
*Records of what might / might not have been known during world war two
*Support and/or critique of the internment order (btw: I removed "concentration camp" because it's a slightly perjoritive term when compared to the Nazi version, but "camp" isn't strong enough -- maybe someone has an idea of what to do about that....)
I also feel that the article generally needs more of the following:
*More records of critical opinions of Roosevelt in the media of the day, as well as modern criticisms . In particular, more discussion of the stark contrast of opinions in the country when he became the first three termer.
*More detailed information on how Roosevelt's policies were innovative -- they were! He is portrayed here as a strong, dedicated, effective leader, but his cleverness is underrepresented
*More background information (through either text or links) so that readers have the context to understand how Roosevelt strenghtened the Federal Government further and weakened states, strengthened the executive bransh and weakened Judicial, but also congress ( the latter isn't addressed as much)
I believe strongly that my changes should be peer reviewed to maintain the neutral point of view principle, and to assist with doing that well, I will disclose my biases (though I've tried to compensate for them in my edits as best I can):
I believe that Roosevelt was a strong, capable leader, a maverick, and a competant military strategist. At the same time, I believe he was an authoritarian who re-interpeted laws illegally to suit his purposes and was quite adept at deceiving the public. 
I tried to present critical views that maintained neutrality - allowing readers to loathe, admire, or have mixed feelings about the man -- but to faithfully tell the whole story. That's a lofty goal, and I'm sure I've fallen short (I'm not done yet) -- So please help!
Thanks! EggplantWizard 02:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont' fundamentally disagree with your primary point that the way the information is currently phrased might be lending it too much credibility, but while it is unlikely, there is some evidence to support such allegations, and as such, they deserve some mention in the article. As I suggested, we really need more factual referencesand footnoting so that people can more easily draw their own conclusions. I'll note that I personally don't believe that Roosevelt knew the specifics of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, but the theory is mainstream enough (and not quite as implausible as you suggest), that it shouldn't be entirely dismissed from the article. If you can compress the text as it stands and present more facts that contradict it, that would be great. I might do it myself when I find a big block of free time. Thanks for the feedback. EggplantWizard 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend a one paragraph explanation of the existence of the various Pearl Harbor theories, with a reference to one explanatory article.  A full explanation of all the various evidence and theories surely justifies an article of its own. --Pmeisel 13:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAjor revisions to the page 

message: Why is this article called Franklin Delano Roosevelt? It is not Wikipedia policy to title biographical articles with the person's full name. His name was Franklin Roosevelt and that is what the article should be called. Also his role in Freemasons hardly belongs in the opening section. Adam 12:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article

message: I have now actually read the article, the first time I have done so. It is very poorly written, and full of silly conspiracy theories and irrelevant nonsense of various kinds (what on earth has all that garbage about Stalin got to do with Roosevelt's biography?). Are there really no serious American historians at Wikipedia? This article is a disgrace to any pretensions Wikipedia has to call itself a serious encyclopedia. I will make it my project tomorrow to write a new article. Roosevelt deserves better and so does Wikipedia. Adam 12:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Garbage

message: Any attempt to reinstall revisionist nonsense, conspiracy theories or Polish nationalist rants into this article will be vigorously resisted. Adam 14:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  revisionism, conspiracy, Polish nationalism 

message: Briefly: mid-1940s medicine was not advanced enough to
recognize how bad FDR's condition was, nor the risks that he was
taking (and subjecting the nation to) by running for a fourth term.
For example, we now know that
1)  Paraplegics are particularly prone to hypertension (high blood
pressure)
2)  This is particularly true of older paraplegics, over age 60 or so
3)  Hypertension is very closely correlated with a whole bunch of
other problems, including heart disease and strokes
4)  A diet rich in saturated fats and heavy starches correlates with
heart disease and strokes, and is particularly bad for paraplegics;
and
5)  Smoking is also correlated with heart disease and strokes.
None of these things were known in 1944-5.  FDR in 1944 was a 62 year
old paraplegic who chain smoked, ate bad food, was in a high-stress
job, and had sky-high blood pressure... and _nobody realized this was
dangerous_.  The correlation between hypertension and strokes, for example,
wasn't even suggested until 1948.  FDR's blood pressure was checked
every month and recorded, but nobody thought that it was dangerously
high; contemporary medicine thought that rapid _changes_ in blood
pressure were dangerous, not hypertension per se.
There was a vague realisation that fatty food made you fat, and being
fat was bad for your heart.  But the etiology was a complete mystery. 
And in any event, FDR wasn't fat - he ate dreadful food, but he kept
quite trim by swimming laps (which will burn calories fast when you
can't use your legs; try it sometime).  He looked slim, tan, and
healthy right up to the autumn of 1944.  Contemporary medicine had no
way of even imagining that his arteries were shutting down from
cholesterol, nor that smoking and 16-hour days were putting his whole
system far into the red-line zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Benjamin Austin (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health 

message: This new version, besides being at a name almost never used (Franklin D. Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are both much more commonly used), has lost much info and links compared to the old version. Examples I've found so far are:
*Date of 'fear itself' quote
*Any mention of dime
*Hugo Black
*Wagner Act
*F.D. Roosevelt State Park
*Glass-Steagall Act
*Wiley Blount Rutledge
And I don't know how many more. I'm going to revert. Niteowlneils 00:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I firmly believe major overhauls of articles, especially ones this size, should be done in-place, a) to help avoid unintentional content deletion, b) so Diff shows what's changed, c) so the History stays together. Also, I think re-naming this article is a bad idea, as [] rules out "Franklin Roosevelt", and "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" and "Franklin D. Roosevelt" seem about equally common, so there's nothing gained by changing to the inital version. Niteowlneils 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can a significantly truncated article be "better"? Anyway, all editing should be done in one place (to the original article); any renaming should be done separately, using the "Move" tab. Niteowlneils 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version lost too much 

message: There was a question of renaming the article, I don't mean to break the flow with a new section, but, just from the outside, when I the think of him, the most natural names, in keeping with naming convention are, in order: 1st, Franklin D. Roosevelt; 2nd. Franklin Delano Roosevelt; 3rd, Franklin Roosevelt. If I went looking, that's how I'd search. I might not remember, or know, Deleno, but I do remember that "D." Shorter names are more natural and "Franklin D." is just how he's spoken of commonly. (There are things about working "redirects" I don't understand.) Calicocat 05:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming the article 

message: I'm Sorry If I missed this but there is no listing of Cabinet Members as with previous presidents; was this moved to another section? Thanks in Advance! - DonkeyBeliever(sorry I fogot to logon)
*Now added.  10:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
**A pity it's so outstandingly ugly. Adam 10:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabinet members 

message: The Eleanor Roosevelt is not too bad but could use some editing. The articles for the five surviving Roosevelt children are very sketchy and need a lot of work, if someone feels inclined. Adam 06:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleanor and the children 

message: Good to see that we now have a qualilty article on FDR at an agreeable location on Wikipedia. Let's look now to perfect this piece as much as possible and not grumble about the naming of the article anymore.  08:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
----
I have done about 80 redirects. Someone else can do some if they like :)  Adam 11:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks PMA 

message: When and why did he move from isolationism to intervention in the European war? Do you think he purposely led the United States into war? Why or Why not?
(I am writing a research paper based on these questions, and need some help)
FDR was always a Wilsonian internationalist and was never an isolationist, so he personally didn't move - he worked to shift US public opinion from isolationism to interventionism. As the article says, he believed it was in the interests of the US, as well as the right thing in general, to defeat Hitler and to help Britain and France. During 1939-41 he did everything he could to prepare US opinion to enter the war in Europe. Had Pearl Harbor not happened he would probably have done what Wilson did in 1917 - used a naval incident as a pretext for declaring war on Germany. I don't believe he wanted a war in the Pacific. Adam 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me assess Roosevelt's conduct of American Foreign Policy after 1935. 

message: Could whoever is in charge of this:
Please fix it so that it directs to Franklin D. Roosevelt and not Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as the article has now been moved? Adam 03:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidents table 

message: I just happened by, and I'm not taking sides in any of the issues discussed above -- but there's evidently been some inept moving that stranded the history.  If you can't use "Move this page" to move an article, put it on WP:RM, don't cut and paste it!  The history of this article now tells readers that there were no edits from 25 Feb 2002 until April 2005.  When those of you editing this article think you have some stability, please make sure that the stranded history at Franklin Delano Roosevelt is integrated here, along with any other stray bits of history or talk. JamesMLane 18:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help needed 

message: While I mostly agree with its implied point of view, the neutrality of this section is compromised because of the manner in which it written and the facts that are presented. 
For example, it is perfectly fair and neutral to point out, "No evidence was ever produced to support fears of Japanese-American espionage." However, the section then states, "A comment by De Witt shows the irrationality of the anti-Japanese agitation at this time..." The rationality and irrationality of anything is subjective, a violation of NPOV.
Later, it is stated,  "It was striking that no similar steps were taken, or even suggested, against German-Americans and Italian-Americans. It is also striking that Japanese-Americans continued to serve in the U.S. armed forces throughout the war, although they were not employed in the Pacific theater." Again, this is the author's subjective analysis of the situation, which, while useful, does not conform to NPOV. This needs to be reworded.
The next paragraph states, "Conditions in the camps...were tolerable..." Again, this is subjective. What I consider tolerable may not be the same as what someone else considers tolerable. This section needs to be reworded. One way this can be done is to include primary sources that describe the conditions in the internment camps.
The next paragraph states that Roosevelt did not sign the order ending the internment "until after the November elections." It goes on to say, "This shows that his motivation was in part simply political expediency." Again, this is the author's analysis of the situation. It is opinion, not necessarily fact. The tone of the next sentence ("He was not prepared to defend Japanese-American civil rights if it meant a fight with influential Democrats, or the Army, or the Hearst press, nor if it meant he might lose California to the Republicans in 1944") implies some degree of contempt for Roosevelt or for his policy on internment on the part of the author. This needs to be revised to conform to NPOV. 
Finally, the section ends with the statement, "It cannot be denied, however, that Roosevelt's action were at least in part motivated by racism." Technically, this can be denied, even though the author presents a quotation to support this statement. In order to tell the whole story, I feel that that quotation should be kept there. However, it must be analyzed much more objectively.
Japanese internment was a dark hour in U.S. civil rights history, but its presentation on Wikipedia should be neutral. The reader needs to make up his/her own mind about it. It is quite obvious that the author of this section has already made up his/her own mind and is presenting it as a subjective analysis of history, not an objective reporting of it.
--Hnsampat 17:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't delete edits for no reason, I delete them if I think they are innaccurate and/or irrelevant. That's why I deleted your earlier edits. As a result, we now have better edits. The more we argue, the better edits we get. Adam 12:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute -- Japanese-American issues 

message: The current article emphasizes Japanese internment from California, but it really happened all over the west coast, including Canada. Of course, that's probably the sort of "trivia" you won't allow me to add (in blatant disregard for the text at the bottom of all edit windows "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.").  Niteowlneils 15:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just California 

message: "...while spinning out the negotiations..." that's certainly not US English--what does it mean in {whatever} English? Niteowlneils 15:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "spinning out" 

message: As written this article is riddled with dubious statements, anti-Roosevelt slant, and libertarian POV.  Examples:
The first two paragraphs in the "Private crises" section: most of this rates a "so what?", looks to have been inserted into the article to make FDR look bad, and should probably be pared down to just a few sentences.
Numerous instances of dubious libertarian POV in the "First term: the New Deal" section:
"...the Democrats (which, unlike today, had traditionally been a party of small government and laissez faire economics)..."
"...and to a leader who had grown up to privilege and had no coherent plan for solving America's problems other than a genial optimism."
"Roosevelt indeed had no systematic economic beliefs at all."
"Contrary to popular belief, however, the Depression was not cured by Roosevelt's programs, collectively known as the New Deal. The economic theories of John Maynard Keynes were not widely known in the United States, and it is doubtful that Roosevelt ever knew of them. Even the large appropriations that Roosevelt extracted from Congress and spent on relief and assistance to industry were not enough to provide a sufficient fiscal stimulus to revive so large an economy as that of the United States."
"This was mainly because the high tariff barriers erected in response to the Depression were not removed, and without a revival of international trade there could be no full recovery."
"It took the massive growth in government spending during World War II to restore industrial production to its 1929 level and eliminate unemployment."  
More dubious and probably unsubstantiated POV in the "Civil rights and refugees" section:
"Roosevelt's anti-Semitism became an important factor in deciding government policy on the Jewish refugee issue before and during World War II."
"Roosevelt's attitudes to both African-Americans and Jews remain a striking contrast with his social liberalism and generosity of spirit on most other issues."
Kaibabsquirrel 22:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...but, for example, this statement: "Contrary to popular belief, however, the Depression was not cured by Roosevelt's programs" is a POV.  It *is* widely believed that his programs cured the Depression.  It would be better to say that "The popular belief is that Roosevelt's programs cured the Great Depression.  Historians and economists debate over the extent to which this is true."  The statement that international trade was necessary for a full recovery and tariffs harmed the recovery is free-trade POV.  How about starting that sentence with "Some argue that this was mainly because..."  "Roosevelt's anti-Semitism"?  How about "Roosevelt's alleged anti-Semitism"? Kaibabsquirrel 00:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks Adam, I'll go ahead and make those two changes and remove the NPOV tag for now.  As for the anti-Semitism charge I'm going to have to do some research pro and con to see what specific sources say.  Kaibabsquirrel 05:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV