Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 5

message: I'd like to make the article more logically organized by: 1) moving first two paragraphs (concerning Roosevelt's marital crisis and extra-marital affairs) of "Private crisis" into "Marriage and children", and 2) renaming "Private crisis" to "Paralytic illness", since the remaining three paragraphs of "Private crisis" are about his illness. Another advantage of renaming the section is that we could eventually shorten the "Paralytic illness" section and have a separate wikipedia article with more detail on FDR's illness. Dagoldman 06:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for "Private crisis" and "Marriage and children" sections 

message: For all the content in this article which has been vociferously defended ad nauseam, there is a section that is mostly missing.  The entire section contents are as follows:
:Recovery
:Roosevelt believed that pump-priming--that is, federal spending--would pull the economy out of the do
If anyone knows what has been removed, it seems this would be an appropriate place for those who are rigidly defending the status quo to focus their energy. 206.124.31.221 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I have correctly identified and replaced the missing text. Wtfk 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly Missing Section Entitled "Recovery" 

message: The GNP growth rates Data from Historical Statistics of the United States (1976) series F3 and F32
compound annual growth real GNP
starting in 1933 to 
*1937 = 9.5
*1941 = 8.1
*1944 = 8.9 FDR's  last full year
*1945 = 8.0 but he died in April
The rest of the world is covered in The World Economy: Historical Statistics by Angus Maddison  (OECD 2003) p 174, which is online at 
The highest growth I find is Japan from 1950 to 1962 at 8.4%, which is somewhere between FDR 33-44 and FDR 33-45. Was Japan an industrialized country in 1950? well maybe, maybe not.  China might do better--Maddison has it at 7.8% since 1990s and it might beat FDR's record.  No European country is close, not any other 12 years in American history. Rjensen 04:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, do you realize that the deeper the economic decline the bigger the rebound? The economy is going to revert to the mean. So, extreme growth coming out of an economic abyss is not saying much. Anyway, you haven't checked out Hong Kong have you? --the most laissez-faire economy in the world. From the Hong Kong article: "Growth averaged a strong 8.9% per annum in real terms in the 1970s" RJII 05:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hong Kong was not on the world list of industrialized countries (it's a city, part of China). You mention Hong Kong over a decade--over 10 years FDR had 9.1% from 1933 to 1943, which was better than Hong Kong over 10 years. "recert to mean" I guess is what the FDR haters do on Wiki. Rjensen 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of parsing is this?  "It's a city, part of China."  It wasn't in the 1970's, and economically, China is leaving it alone--for now. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you doing? You're selecting 4 years of your choice and averaging them? How about the intervening years? Of course you conveniently leave out the recession year in your calculation. RJII 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then he'd have to admit the ugly truth that FDR policies actually created a recession. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hong Kong is not included in the lists of countries because of its special status. If we include it FDR did slightly better. As for cherry picking yers: NO I am not doing that. FDR started in 1933, we all agree, and he died in office in 1945. That is the logical beginning and ending, I suggest--what else? But the little table shows the growth from start to end of first term/second term/ third term. He did about as well as Hong Kong in the 1970s, which is the best growth record in world history. Rjensen 05:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A huge problem with that assertion is the context in which the "best growth record in world history" was manufactured.  The "growth" in the GNP during the war was a net loss of capital for the materials of war.  That's at best an intellectually dishonest application of such a statistic. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A huge problem is the intellectual dishonesty of FDR's critics. If the economy got much better they DENY IT -- and deny the facts.  They don't understand economics or statistics. They just want polemics, and ridiculke hard facts from standard sources like Historical Statistics of the US and OECD. Maybe they have their own secret statistics that they are not sharing with us?  Rjensen 05:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Intellectual dishonesty is calling hawking the future for generations "improving the economy."  The statistics you cite are only statistics.  They are not the whole picture. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How can you talk about "intellectual dishonesty" when you're cherry picking the years you include in your calculation? RJII 05:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNP growth rates 

message: The section on The New Deal goes on and on.  There shouldn't be any more than a stub with scant information on the new deal, because there's already an article for it. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: one of FDR's two greatest achievements was running the New Deal. (the other was ww2). The personal factor is the reason there are so many books on FDR-- and indeed the reason there is a Wiki. Rjensen 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic pushed before is that this is not about the New Deal.  I agree.  It should be removed (or drastically curtailed) since there already is an article for it. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 06:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  a lot of people played a role in New Deal, FDR more than anyone. I will rewrite this to explain what FDR himself did. Rjensen 07:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a reasonable approach, as long as it is brief and appropriately abstracted from the details of the (new deal) article--since that article itself attributes the New Deal to FDR. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 07:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I restored what was there for FDR's first term.  That should provide a good basis for summarizing. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Deal 

message: For the most part, POV-based wording has been altered, where I saw it, to preserve neutrality.  I think this makes the article much more objective without removing meaningful content.  Some sections have been shortened or will be shortened to reflect the fact that whole articles exist on those topics.  The New Deal section, unfortunately, had a good summary, but appears to have been hurt by competing edits.  Conscientious improvements of some sections could improve this article, but NNPOV can not and will not be tolerated on Wikipedia.
There are several areas that need fact-checking.  I'm sure the sources will be forthcoming or the statements will be made more appropriate.  I believe this article is well on its way to being both informative (which it already was) and reasonably neutral (which was its challenge.)  Hopefully, we'll be able to remove the POV tag in good conscience soon. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 08:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much POV Clean-up Achieved 

message: I haven't been following closely the editing war/POV-cleanup that's been going on here, but why exactly has nearly all of the introductory information in this article been deleted? It was hardly POV in listing the major points of Roosevelt's administration (in the same fashion as most other wikipedia pres. biographies), and the small section noting that Roosevelt is typically considered one of the top three American presidents is the widespread consensus of historians. The only real pieces of information left are disputed economic statistics. It seems lacking for such a major figure in world history. - Fearfulsymmetry 18:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of intro information?

message: Rjensen, do you understand "weasel words." You stated, "Detractors note that Roosevelt took six years to restore the damage Hoover had caused in only four years, so that the depression lasted for 10 years." "Detractors note" is known as "weasel words" ..it appears you're making up something that detractors note. If you're going to say "detractors note" this, then you need to be able to source some detractors noting that. RJII 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was RJii not me who used the line "detractors note". Actually the detractors rarely blame FDR for the 1929-33 downswing--they blame Hoover.  FDR gets blamed for one bad year (1938) and gets credit for 11 good years.  Rjensen 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did, but not for that statement. I just said that they noted that the depression lasted 10 years --very easy to source. You changed it to make up a complex claim that they "note". I request a source, or it will have to be deleted. RJII 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a bio of FDR. No critic has EVER said FDR was responsible for ten years of depression. It's false. So I fixed the statement. Four years hoover, 6 years FDR. Rjensen 03:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted your statement. You are unable to source any critic of Roosevelt saying that. RJII 03:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: weasel words

message: Srdja Trifkovic is a well-known Serbian terrorist -- see the Wiki article -- he was the official spokesperson for the Bosnian Serbs defending their atrocities. (He was not himself engaged in killing people). He's not an historian of the US -- so why would anyone use him as an authority on FDR???? It makes the article look ridiculous.  How about adding some Nazi commentators from 1944 on what they thought of FDR?  Rjensen 07:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Wiki article?? You should know better than to trust Wikipedia. I request a credible source for your claim. All I can see is that he was called as an expert witness in the defense of Milosevic. Engaging in ad hominem against him in the article is out of line. He's a professional historian. RJII 07:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article on Srdja Trifkovic and saw a lot more then him being called as an expert witness. I agree with "Why would anyone use him as an authority on FDR???" This Trifkovic guy is the equivalent of a Serb Holocaust denier. Two sentences from the wikipedia article: He claims that the Bosnian Serb rape camps were "entirely fictitious". He insists that the massacre of several thousand Muslims in Srebrenica was as a "stage-managed massacre" and "self-inflicted", and a "long-debunked myth". Rjensen's criticism was not "ad hominem". Maybe "ad crackpot". Trifkovic makes outrageous claims, and has no particular authority on FDR. I vote for striking the paragraph with Trifkovic's "opinions". Dagoldman 08:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That article looks like a bunch of made-up stuff to me. It's not sourced. Obviously, he's not concerned about being politically correct. Hence, his criticism of FDR. But, not being politically correct and being controversial hardly excludes him as a credible source. He's published and a PhD historian --that's certainly a credible source according to Wikipedia policy. Criticism against FDR is itself politically incorrect. It's a no-no among the establishment not to regard him as a patron saint. RJII 08:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Huh?!? The Trifkovic article is extensively sourced, related to Trifkovic's outrageous claims. Just go to the "Controversial claims" section and click on links 6, 8, 9, 10, and others. And your quote related to Trifkovic being "a man of extraordinary intellectual courage" (whatever that implies) is one of the few points that is not sourced!! By the way, how do you know if Trifkovic is concerned about being politically correct? And just who is the "establishment"? And what gives you the right to define what is politically correct, since your arguments and reasoning are so obviously flawed? You're hoisted on your own petard. Dagoldman 16:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it's not politically correct to disagree that FDR was a "great president" since the vast majority of people are convinced he was a "great president." Anyone who says otherwise is viciously attacked. By the way, you're mistaken that the claim that Trifkovic was called a "man of extraordinary intellectual courage" is not sourced. The links is there. RJII 01:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  So now you've defined "politically correct" to mean "whatever the vast majority believes". What's your source? Look at the wikipedia article on political correctness. Look in a dictionary. Your being criticized has nothing to do with political correctness. It's because of the wild, unsubstantiated claims you're making. Of course, you have the right to define words however you want, but that kind of excludes you from participating in a rational conversation with others. You're right about one thing. Someone did call Trifkovic "a man of extraordinary intellectual courage". You were partly at fault because you failed to cite in your original sloppy edit -  And it doesn't change the fact that Trifkovic makes outrageous, "big lie" claims, and is not an authority on FDR. Dagoldman 03:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what "wild unsubstantiated claims" do you accuse me of making? RJII 03:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That Trifkovic is a reliable or credible source of opinion related to FDR. That the wikipedia article on Trifkovic is a bunch of made-up stuff. That the wikipedia article on Trifkovic is not sourced. Those are the ones I'm aware of, anyway. I have not followed the other discussion threads you've been submitting. Dagoldman 06:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll now add the debt/gnp graph rjii asked for. Rjensen 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that. And, how about an employment chart with that? RJII 08:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: same old story--emplyment rose from 24 million on nonfarm payrolls 1933 to 32 million in 1940. Rjensen 08:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah right. LOL. It didn't start soaring until 1941 with the war. The truth should be shown in a graph for all to see. RJII 09:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Srdja Trifkovic is junk history--the guy never studied US history and is not quoted by or respected by any scholar of the New Deal period. It's embarrassing to Wiki to have his false statements (about FDR bribing people, for example.) Rjensen 02:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. He has indeed been cited by scholars. Give me a few minutes and I'll show that. And, it's really POV of you to delete him. He is published and is a professional degreed historian. RJII 02:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here he is, cited right here (and that same essay as a matter of fact):  What do you have to say to that? Are you going to call the guy who cites him a "crank" now or something like that? RJII 02:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Four sentences were quoted by a non-historian in an op-ed piece? that's it???? sorry that's not good enough for Wiki. Think of all the junk that would be allowed by that criterion. Let's find some secondary source, some refereed journal, some well-reviewed book.  Actually all there is is a couple paragraphs written by a specialist on Yugoslavia who never pretended to study American history. Fact is FDR and the Brains Trust never talked about Mussolini. (The closest you get: Sec Perkins said that Hugh Johnson in 1934 was talking about Mussolini. She complained to FDR who immediately fired Johnson.) Rjensen 02:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? A criticism is going to be an op-ed. The president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob G. Hornberger  is citing a paper from a professional historian who published the paper in Chronicles. That's definitely sufficient for Wikipedia standards. I'm putting it back in. RJII 02:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Trifkovic is the foreign editor of Chronicles and he published his own essay there. That is not peer review--it's more like a paper blog :)  Then a lawyer quoted a few sentences in his own paper blog. That would not be accepted by a supermarket tabloid, let alone Wiki.  Rjensen 02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serb terrorist attacks FDR 

message: ten year depression -- lots of countries had one in 1930s. Blame Hoover for starting it and credit FDR for ending it. 
<TABLE BORDER>
<TR> <TD>
      Employed workers </TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD></TD> <TD></TD> <TD>
      millions</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1929</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,31339">
      1929</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B3/1000">
      31.3</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1930</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,29424">
      1930</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B4/1000">
      29.4</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1931</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,26649">
      1931</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B5/1000">
      26.6</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1932</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,23628">
      1932</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B6/1000">
      23.6</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1933</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,23711">
      1933</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B7/1000">
      23.7</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1934</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,25953">
      1934</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B8/1000">
      26.0</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1935</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,27053">
      1935</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B9/1000">
      27.1</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1936</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,29082">
      1936</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B10/1000">
      29.1</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1937</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,31026">
      1937</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B11/1000">
      31.0</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1938</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,29209">
      1938</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B12/1000">
      29.2</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1939</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,30618">
      1939</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B13/1000">
      30.6</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1940</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,32376">
      1940</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B14/1000">
      32.4</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1941</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,36554">
      1941</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B15/1000">
      36.6</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1942</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,40125">
      1942</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B16/1000">
      40.1</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1943</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,42452">
      1943</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B17/1000">
      42.5</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1944</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,41883">
      1944</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B18/1000">
      41.9</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1945</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,40394">
      1945</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B19/1000">
      40.4</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1946</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="4,-1,41674">
      1946</TD><TD QP::NUMFORMAT:="33,-1,+B20/1000">
      41.7</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
<TR> <TD>
</TABLE>
      Source: Historical Stats US series D127; </TD> </TR>
    nonfarm payrolls; excludes farmers, military, and relief workers</TD> </TR>
Rjensen 09:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, both with that and the general unemployment number you can see that employment problems didn't get fixed until the war started. Roosevelt's policy obviously didn't do anything to help employment. It even got worse 4 or 5 years after he was elected when his policies brought on a recession. And, yes, Hoover is largely responsible for contributing to starting it with his tax increased and protectionism. But, Roosevelt prolonged it with his interventionism and even more tax increases. A free economy is not going to have a prolonged depression like that --resources are going to get reallocated through market forces and it's going to move on. RJII 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "A free economy is not going to have a prolonged depression like that"  says who?  That's straight POV, I'm afraid. Zero evidence for it. (the usual response is "there have never been any truly free economies") Rjensen 01:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter whether there's evidence for it. The opinion is sourceable from respected economists. RJII 02:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is RJii claiming he does not interpret data?  The Wiki rule is that we can't do original research. I certainly did not--Maddison did all the original research. I relied on his enormous painstaking work, as does everyone writing about economic growth.  It is NOT true that Wiki consists of quotes from the sources strung together. Nonsense! It is a narrative based on solid reliable secondary sources that have to be cited. Is it "original research" to say that 11 is higher than 10? Does Wiki demand a quotations that say "Mathematicians have discovered that 10.9% is higher that 9.3%" and "Historians report that 1945 is 12 years later than 1933."  Rjensen 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. You don't have a source for your claim that Roosevelt presided over the "highest growth rate in American history--and one of the highest in world history for any industrial nation." It's your original research. Your interpreration of the data. That's not allowed on Wikipedia. RJII 03:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new data 

message: William Hoar is affiliated with the John Birch society, which publishes all his material. Western islands press is their imprint and "the New American" magazine. This is not solid secondary scholarship. Citing this makes Wiki look pretty foolish. Rjensen 04:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a credible source by Wikipedia standards. It's published by a prolific author. What does the John Birch Society have to do with anything? So what if you don't like the John Birch Society? Do not delete it. Stop deleting sources. RJII 04:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not use self-published stuff. Wiki sources = peer reviewed articles in journals. ANYONE can self-publish ANYTHING and that is what we have to screen out. If Hoar leads to a Hoover quote, great, use the Hoover quote which carries real weight.  Rjensen 04:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not self-published. RJII 04:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not peer-reviewed  Hoar says anything he wants--it's the same quality as the average talk radio show. High quality is the goal here. Rjensen 05:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a published source. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that a source be peer-reviewed. It's preferable, sure, but it's not required. RJII 05:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is: editors have to gauge quality. Rjensen 05:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's not. Merely being published is not considered "peer review." Wikipedia allows published sourced that are not "peer reviewed." If you want to call editors gauging quality as "peer review," fine. Then, the source is peer reviewed because it was published. RJII 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You can find crackpots and extremists with widely diverging hyper-positive and hyper-negative views on FDR (and many other politicians). Is it the purpose of wikipedia (or any similar article) to detail these extreme positions? I don't think so, because it doesn't represent any kind of consensus or reasonable view. Just listing the extreme positions doesn't tell us much. I would propose listing the positive and negative critical conclusions reached by major historians who have thoughtfully researched and written about FDR, in scholarly sources referenced at the end of the article. There is no evidence for some kind of conspiracy among historians to paint FDR in a positive or negative light. Dagoldman 06:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dagoldman is exactly right.  Wiki is an encyclodeia designed to present the consensus of scholars and specialists. If some scholars have a variant minority view we not it but do not pay great attention, (says Wiki). Cranks who are not scholars and have not sone serious research can be ignored.  People who want their views can find them on Google. We especially must not use unscholarly cranks if the only purpose is to add POV to the article.  Let's please minimize the POV by keeping to consensus scholarship.  Note that most of the cranks are conspiracy theorists, especially regarding FDR helping Japan attack Pearl Harbor. Rjensen 04:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person does not have to be a scholar in order for his opinion on Roosevelt to be recorded here. For example, Hoover did not write any "scholarly" papers condemening Roosevelt as bringing fascist economics to the US. But, that was his claim. H.L. Mencken criticized Roosevelt, but did not write "scholarly" criticisms. There is no requirement that this kind of thing come from "scholarly" papers. RJII 04:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: editors are NOT allowed to inject POV into the articles either by stating their own opinions or finding some unknown self-published blogger who the editor agrees with.  NO POV is the rule for Wiki and we have to keep to it. Mencken was one of the most important commentators of the 1920s and 1930s and his opinions deserve notice. Hoar is totally unknown and is quoted ONLY because he expresses the POV views of one editor. Rjensen 04:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that non-notable opinions shouldnt be noted, if they're not scholarly. But, I don't agree with you that Hoar is not notable. I think Hoar is pretty well known. RJII 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hoard is a staff writer for the John Birsh Society which is his own publisher. Does he have a college degree? Who knows. Do scholars and journalists quote him with respect? Does he appear on Fox TV or give interviews or lectures or write for mainstream magazines like National Review. no.  Nobody knows anything about his credentials. He is quoted ONLY because his opinions on FDR coincide with the POV of one editor. Rjensen 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can turn that right around and say the only reason his inclusion is being opposed is because his POV conflicts with the POV of one or two of the editors. RJII 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Hoar = John Birch Society 

message: Is there any reason the NPOV tag is still up or does everyone think this article is sufficiently neutral now, aside from the minor details? --Fearfulsymmetry 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag

message: I just came across this article, and I am thoroughly disgusted with the transparent, partisan bickering going on here.  So little of this article is genuine factual information and so much of it exists solely to push various agendas - and it doesn't take very long for it to get started.  Why are economic figured addressed in thr second paragraph of the article?  How is this relevant to the header data?  Give me a break.  Why is there so much speculation about his romantic life?  You people should be ashamed of yourselves.  It's people like you that are rendering Wikipedia a useless entity.
But why bother even complain?  I'm sure you'll just shrug your shoulders and say "But it's the fault of those OTHER guys with that OTHER view!!!"  No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.111.116 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 May 2006.
:I'm also confused as to why economic figures are the most prominent portion of the intro paragraph. It seems inappropriate considering the number of other accomplishments Roosevelt has had. -Fearfulsymmetry 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dealing with the ECONOMIC depression was one of FDR's two great policy challenges (the other was ww2), so yed his economic record is important. Depression = lower GDP Some people seem to think he prolonged the depression, but they don't look at the GNP data. Rjensen 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an unemployment depression. What good is GNP if 17% are unemployed throughout the New Deal? RJII 05:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What formula are you using to arrive at your " 8.5% compound annual growth of GDP" figure? RJII 20:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree with its importance or its accuracy, I just feel that the way the intro is currently, it becomes the center of the section. I feel information in other areas should be given as much consideration. I don't know, I'm tired. Blah. -Fearfulsymmetry 20:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: the 8.5% rate comes directly from Historical Statistcis of the US published by the Dept of Commerce in 1976 p 226. It is the average annual compound growth rate of real GNP. (it is calculated to the month of his death in April 1945). Rjensen 20:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something is not right. I don't have the book so I can't verify what you're saying. It looks like to me that you're doing some faulty calculations. To get the rate of growth in GNP, you take the difference between the GNP for two years and divide that by the GNP for the first year. What are the GNP for each year? RJII 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, that sounds like a primary source, thus Original Research, a no-no.  -- Mwanner | Talk 20:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the Dept of Commerce did the original research and printed the numbers and Wiki just reports it. (To get the results you have to use logs, I believe) The GNP data:   1933 = $141.5 billion (1958 dollars) 1945 = $355.2 Hist Stats page 224 Rjensen 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying you did no calculations? RJII 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it has valuable information of the sort people want to know. Rjensen 10:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, did you make any calculations to come up with your 8.5% number? RJII 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my only calculation was to interpolate between 1944 and 1945 ending points to take his death into account. To get really precise it's necessary to use monthly or quarterly data, which is probably published somewhere in a Statistical Abstract of US in late 1940s. (the numbers are from the Dept of Commerce, and I think they used natural logs:  from year x to year y, their rate of growth formula, I believe is   [ln(GNP:Y) - ln(GNP:X)]/(y-x)  This gives lower rates. Rjensen 17:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: found it: Statistical abstract for every year is at  Rjensen 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stats abstract has only annual data. Rjensen 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They might have had a dictator if the Supreme Court didn't overturn his illegal usurpation of legislative authority. Fascism was sweeping the world. Centralized control was the all the rage --a cure to the supposed chaos and unpredictability of the free market and individual decision. What prevented fascism here was a Constitution that adequately enforces separation of powers. RJII 20:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roosevelt respected the Supreme Court? Are you kidding me? If I'm not mistaken he said something like "those nine old men aren't going to stop any more of my damned programs" and tried to pack the court. He even had a speech prepared announcing his refusal to obey the Supreme Court in the even tha they ruled that bondholders had a right to demand gold. RJII 16:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what you're talking about. I've never argued that FDR was a fascist. The fascism refers to the New Deal. It was very similar to Mussolini's economic system --especially the NRA. But, fortunately it was found unconstitional. If it wasn't, we'd have a fascist-like economic system today instead of a relatively laissez-faire capitalist one. Read this for more information:  RJII 02:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disgusted 

message: Why is Rjensen deleting this: "On December 19, 1941 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Office of Censorship and conferred on its director the power to censor international communications in "his absolute discretion." Byron Price was selected as the Director of Censorship. "Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details."   That's certainly a notable thing, that was the direct result of FDR issuing an executive order. RJII 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because FDR had a minimal role. This of course is standard procedure in wartime. (Lincoln and Wilson did it).  It does not belong in a biography. Rjensen 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's things way more trivial than that in this article. I think it's significant and notable. He hired 14,462 civilians to spy on all cable and radio communications and open private mail coming in and going out of the US. Can you imagine if Bush did that? This is very notable. RJII 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for a polemic side-track to the real issue.  If you don't like those articles, contribute to THEM.  A lot of work was put into correcting the propaganda this article was overloaded with. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Go put in a Criticism section. That always helps with the POV problem. RJII 04:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: FDR signed over 10,000 exec orders. the most famous was  Executive Order 9066, dated February 19, 1942 re Japanese internment camps. Googling "Roosevelt Executive Order" gives 7 million hits. Rjensen 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship (a little ironic isn't it?)

message: Friedman the economist was employed by the WPA, and in early 1940s, as his autobiography explains, he was a Keynesian and a spokesman for the Treasury department, advocating new taxes. He helped invent pay-as-you-go taxes through paycheck withholding. 
After about 1950 he started criticizing the New Deal programs, esp AAA (farm) and NRA.  In his memoirs (1998) he praises the work relief programs as good policy: p 59 "we regarded many early New Deal measures as appropriate responses to the critical situation" and mentions WPA, PWA and CCC. 
There is an informal interview (made when he was about 90) that has one sentence that criticizes the entire New Deal. Friedman wrote upwards of 1000 articles and books, and those should be used not an alleged interview that he did not have a chance to revise. Rjensen 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "we REGARDED many early New Deal measures as appropriate responses to the critical situation." He explains his support of the WPA when he was "very young and unsophisticated" in an interview on PBS, "I must confess that probably I was thinking at that time more about my own interests and position than I was about these broader issues."  He says that ""while the New Deal was not good for the country in many ways, it was very good for me, because I was able to get a job in Washington at the National Resources Committee in Washington."  RJII 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the young and unsophisticated genius who revolutionized modern economics and repeatedly testified to Congress on behalf of the New Deal? I cannot find any explicit criticism of his of the relief programs. He attacks mostly NRA, AAA and labor laws. Rjensen 17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton Friedman praised work relief 

message: It's POV to list criticisms of FDR without listing defences to those criticisms. PMA 09:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So why is it not POV to list criticisms on the George W Bush article without listing defences, mein commissar? 88.105.248.112 18:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms - POV 

message: I'd just like to say that the introduction as it now stands is very well done in my opinion. Very succinct and informative. Good job to whoever did it. --Fearfulsymmetry 03:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - that was me [small bow].  I'd contributed nothing to this article until a couple days ago when it come up for FA status, and the article itself impresses me, as it has better, more dynamic writing than most articles.  I think the only thing holding it back at this point is the need for more citations; myself and another user (RJIII) have each added mulitple citations over the last couple of days, and I think a couple other users have added one, and information that looked questionable has been deleted, but if any of the original authors can still track what their primary sources were in writing, it would be great to have many more.  Sam 12:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Intro 

message: Yea!  FDR's a featured article.  I've only been working on this article for a few days, and I have to say everyone who has worked on it has done a great job.  Note that several daughter articles were split off in the last few days, including:
*Criticism of FDR 
*Franklin D. Roosevelt's record on civil rights 
*Franklin D. Roosevelt's terms as Governor of New York 
*Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralysis 
In addition, inforamtion was moved to Roosevelt family.
Those articles are generally not up to the same standard as this one, so, my thought is, the places most in need of improvement right now are those articles.  (This article could still use more citations, as well). 
Sam 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done and thanks to everyone for improving it during FAC so much :) RN 08:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Status 

message: Part of what got this article Featured Article status was a very heavy pruning to get it down, putting a lot of good information in daughter articles.  I've noted that the length has increased about 10KB since it got FA status a few days ago.  I did most (but not all) of the pruning, and I'm sorry if I pruned some things people really want in the main article.  I did my best to keep the big points in summary form.  
But, I think we should keep this trim.  In pruning, I worked very hard to avoid cutting what I consider the heart and soul of this page, which is FDR's role in the New Deal and his role in shaping the world during World War II (and I think the article is strong with respect to each of these).  I still don't want to see material cuts in either of those two sections.  So, if we're going to keep this to 50KB, more or less, what else should we prune?
I'm tempted to set up a daughter article for FDR's legacy and start pruning there (we could go on and on about memorials, and I've spent a lot of time myself at the Home and Library, but its not critical, in my view, to the article).  Support?  Other proposals? Sam 13:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain that it's merely the same people adding information back in, but rather new contributors who are simply unaware of why the article doesn't contain the specific tidbit they want to put in. I'm sure when I started editing Wikipedia I unknowingly added in information that had been pruned before I joined. It's a difficult phenomenon, unfortunately. Fearfulsymmetry 23:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's mostly certain people, who I'm avoiding naming in order to avoid participating in a personal attack. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length: Nominations for Pruning 

message: It's a WP:OR violation to say that "all" surveys name FDR one of top 3; that is, unless we cite this assertion to an expert on presidential greatness surveys. Please keep this NPOV by sticking with "many" instead of "all". Uncited assertions of opinion-based absolute truths are objectionable. Hdtopo 00:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the experts are cited at Historical rankings of United States Presidents which is linked. Rjensen 00:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest president 

message: I've noticed that any information regarding Franksgiving was removed from this article during the FAC.  What is the reasoning for this?  This event should surely at least garner a wikilink to the page. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was gone before I and others started editing to get the overall article to the appropriate size for a Featured Article.  But given that FDR's record on civil rights, including issues involving Japanese internment, anti-semitism, and racial minorities, was relegated to a daughter article, I'd be opposed to adding such a reference in the main article.  I'd suggest sticking it in the article on Criticisms of FDR, or making it a "see also" somewhere. One of the notable things about FDR seems to be the variety of levels on which he influenced people, so some are moved by issues of paralytic illness, others by the economic issues, others by patriotism, some are put off by the aristocratic thing, others care about rationing and Thanksgiving.  Come tothink of it, there is no mention in the article of rationing.  Sam 21:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is overcrowded--the invasion of Normandy, which FDR worked on for many months--gets 2 sentences. Rjensen 21:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, the only article that links to Franksgiving is Thanksgiving.  I should think one of FDR's daughter articles should link there. I dunno if criticisms is appropriate.  Perhaps the article on the economic effects of the Great Depression? — Scm83x hook 'em 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's call it a New Deal program and link it there :) Rjensen 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good - I think I'll celebrate it this year, as well as Thanksgiving (and Canadian Thanksgiving).  Should do wonders for my local grocer.  And my waist.  Sam 01:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franksgiving 

message: I see since the FAC process, several cuts made for length to the personal and family life sections have been added (at least one with cites - Yea!).  Should we create a subarticle focused either on his personal life or on "Franklin and Eleanor" so that these points can be fleshed out and grow?  Sam 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional language 

message: The article says: "During the war, Roosevelt and the United States provided decisive leadership against Nazi Germany and made the United States the principal arms supplier and financier of the Allies who defeated Germany, Italy and Japan." At the same time if we check "U.S. National debt as a % of GDP" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg), we see that U.S. debt during the war was greater that its GDP. So who really financed Allies using the States as a proxi?
: I suspect we're talking about the "war bonds" that virtually every American, of almost any means, had in a drawer somewhere.  War bonds and ration coupons were a big part of the currency of the time.  But, as to the overall statement that the US became the principal arms supplier and financier, that is a statement that ought to be backed up by a quantitative citation somewhere.  In dollar terms, how much did the US, the British Empire, the USSR, both Chinas, etc. all contribute?  While I suspect the statement is right, I know I'm looking at it through my American eyes.  Sam 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: look at the Lend Lease article: US sent out  $14 to $20 billion to Britain; $9-10 billion to the Soviet Union; France, $3.5 billion; and China and India, $2.2 billion, for a total of $48 billion. Rjensen 17:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That argues for a "big" number, but doesn't argue for "principal", which suggests more than just big.  We're dealing with economies with a couple trillion total GDP among them engaged in total war; I'm not sure $48 billion over 6 years gets us to "principal".  Do we know the total UK, Soviet, Chinese and American debt relating to the war effort and its source?  I'll bet war bonds were more than $48 billion by themselves.   It may be that the US makes principal on the size of our economy alone, but I just don't know.  Sam 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The United States the principal financier of the Allies? 

message: I deleted a couple sentances in early life that cited to Conrad Sandelman.  I could not find this source after searching the usual places, or the information attributed to it (C+ grades - I got several sources for "average" grades, or "average at best", but no C+s) - can some identify it or provide other support? I'm also just not sure why this was worth the space. Sam 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conrad Sandelman 

message: Hello all, I am a junior in high school and my history teacher was talking about how FDR didn't really die from a cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs but from from a heart attack while having sex with his mistress. To be honest I'm not sure on who the mistress was, probably the secretary mentionedin this article but does anyone else know about this?
::What do they teach in high school these days?  He was a cyborg, so how could he die?  But his mission was complete.  (Ask your teacher his or her sources and check them - you won't get a better education). Sam 01:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A perfect example of why our Schools are in need of reform. Whether true or not - it has no place in the classroom.  --Northmeister 01:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that, the teachers that tell you the wierder things about stuff are usually the more interesting ones, and thus you try a little harder in their class. I remember my Grade 10 History teacher taught us all how to make hooch around the Depression and Probation lessons. Highlandlord 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Cover-Up 

message: I just wanted to weigh in and say that I really dislike having the cabinet box disrupt the flow of text - I think it should be after rather than before legacy.  How do others feel? Sam 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea. move it. Rjensen 19:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of cabinet box 

message: From Rosenzweig's article: "The 10,000-word essay on Franklin Roosevelt was the only one with multiple errors. Again, some are small or widely accepted, such as the false claim (made by Roosevelt supporters during the 1932 election) that fdr wrote the Haitian constitution or that Roosevelt money was crucial to his first election to public office in 1910. But two are more significant—the suggestion that a switch by Al Smith’s (rather than John Nance Garner’s) delegates gave Roosevelt the 1932 nomination and the statement that the Supreme Court overruled the National Industrial Recovery Act (nira) in 1937, rather than 1935.". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he does sais that historians should edit wiki, and in his article he notes "Writing about Wikipedia is maddeningly difficult. Because Wikipedia is subject to constant change, much that I write about Wikipedia could be untrue by the time you read this." I would not be suprised if he has already edited Wikipedia :) I think we can easily find his email and ask for a Wikipedia:Academic peer review.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic peer-reviewed criticism of this article

message: What's the use of this in the introduction? That's seems a little bit dishonest here, it doesn't allow people to read the article first and make up their own minds. Instead one gets bombarded with a survey in which other people opinon's matter. Intangible 04:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a major fact about Roosevelt's reputation that needs reporting. The article itself does not make comparisons with other presidents.  Note that FDR's reputations is the same among liberals as conservatives. Rjensen 06:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scholarly surveys 

message: I think that the article should clarify the relationship between Theodore Roosevelt, Eleanor, and FDR. I think we should include in the article that FDR and Eleanor were 5th cousins and that Theodore was the cousin of FDR. Is this ok if I add it? Here is the source that goes over it:
http://www.nps.gov/elro/who-is-er/q-and-a/q6.htm
71.131.219.6 03:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add blood relationship between FDR and Eleanor

message: I can't believe this article doesn't mention the fact that the majority of academic economists today state that FDR's New Deal policies aggravated and extended the Great Depression. It is historically and economically inaccurate to say that FDR "saved capitalism" or "got us out of the Depression."
::Only a small minority of economists think that way. Whaples did a survey of economic historians and economists. he asked "Taken as a whole, government policies of 
the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression. Ofthe economists 27% agreed and 51% disagreed. Of the economic historians, only 6% agreed and 74% disagreed. (the rest were in the partly agree/disagree group). See  Rjensen 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deal 

message: I don't think Milton Friedman belongs in the lead, especially given how hard to was to trim the lead to that length.  I've got nothing against noting criticism of New Deal Policies in the body (and, indeed, believe I drafted the language on criticism of tax policy down below), as well as in the article on criticism of FDR (which currently suffers from too much attention by fringe complainants and too little from academics with serious critiques) but would think the better way to do this would be to add a specific cite in the body to a substantive point, and not just note that someone has broadbrush objections to policies in the lead.  Sam 16:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milton Friedman 

message: :He personally led US Marines into Haiti to overturn the only independent black republic besides Abyssinia. By all accounts, FDR administered Haiti brutally and cruelly with no regard for lives. Even in 1920 after gross atrocities were reported in the media, FDR claimed responsibility but when that caused an uproar, he denied responsibility. In the campaign of 1920 President Harding said this: "Practically all we know is that thousands of native Haitians have been killed by American Marines, and that many of our own gallant men have sacrificed their lives at the behest of an Executive department in order to establish laws drafted by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy...I will not empower an Assistant Secretary of the Navy to draft a constitution for helpless neighbors in the West Indies and jam it down their throats at the point of bayonets borne by US Marines." 
Really, this will not do; the first sentence asserts that FDR went to Haiti himself and commanded troops, which is most surprising for a civilian. All this needs sources. Septentrionalis 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very busy somewhat offbeat vandal.  At least we get some different vandals here.  I have issued one warning already.  I suggest reverting such vandalism periodically. Sam 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep watching. Septentrionalis 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haiti

message: Hopkins was just added to the lead: I'd prefer to keep the focus on FDR there; Hopkins is mentioned in the text, but I don't think he should have a place in the lead. Sam 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In ww2 Hopkins was FDR's top aide and advisor--he even lived in the White House, so I think that deserves a mention (5 words?) Rjensen 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be over-sensitive because I spent a lot of time cutting down that lead once upon a time - and it wasn't easy.  Right now, other than Hopkins, the individuals mentioned in the lead are Truman, Churchill and Eleanor, each of which I think has a clear, uncontested purpose to being there by name (OK, I had argued once in favor of the "Big 3" instead of Churchill, but that's past).  I just don't want to see more creep in the size and coverage of the lead.  But, let's see what others say, so far it's 1 to 1 on the score, and if it has to be someone, I'd just as soon it be Hopkins. Sam 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i guess Staling would be the next one to mention--of course it was Hopkins who talked to Churchill and Stalin all the time, which makes him critical to understanding FDR during the war. I see Hopkins sort of like Cheney today or Bobby Kennedy during JFK's administration. Rjensen 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge the case for Hopkins; I actually think he's someone who should have more visibility, but I think the case is equally strong for many others during WWII (Stalin, certainly, but also McArthur, Eisenhower, and his relationship with the armed forces generally, Wallace) and another half dozen during the depression and his first 100 days; many of these others are more fully independent actors than was Hopkins.  I'll leave it for now, but will take the initiative to delete it if others start to creep in or if other editors weigh in that they think it should be out.  Sam 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopkins in summary 

message: I wish you had had the courtesy to engage in debate before removing the references to Stalin and Churchill. The story of the deterioration in the relatinship between Roosevelt and Churchill is admirably described in 'For your freedom and ours' by Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud which is heavily annotated with footnotes, too many to include here. I would like to reinsert my precis of the story but courtesy demands that I should, at least, offer you the chance of reading the material. I am happy to supply any particular references, not least from Churchill himself, from Lord Moran his doctor, from (prime minister) Mikolajczyk's book 'The Rape of Poland'in which he describes how he found out about the redrawing of the Eastern borders, from Doris Kearns Goodwin's book 'No ordinary time'. I am sorry not to have given chapter and verse hitherto; the apparatus of WP is clumsier than that of books. Is it possible that you might yourself restore some version of what I had written? Roger Arguile August 22nd. 2006
::Roger--on this important topic Wiki needs to use the very best scholarship. Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud wrote a good book about one aircraft squadron but did not pretend to study the diplomatic literature on the subject from Britain, US and USSR. There are excellent bibliographies in the Churchill and FDR articles that make good starting points. Rjensen 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that a highly debated topic like this needs two things: first it has to cite the best scholarship. Otherwise it's a signal that an editor has a POV to make that is not supported by the scholars who have done the original research in the archives and documents. Words like "duplicity" strongly suggest POV on the part of an editor--that is not Wiki language.  Second it has to present different interpretations ofthe same events. Presenting one side is POV and can't be allowed. Rjensen 19:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please don't proceed until you become familiar with the topic and feel prepared to handle it in an impartial fashion without POV. Rjensen 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an advanced article on a topic with heavy POV. Roger Arguile inserted material about FDR's motivations based on a popular book about a fighter squadron--a book that made no pretense of scholarship about FDR. We have lots of fine scholarship listed in the references, and an editor who is truly interested will first engage that literature (and the scholarship on Churchill). An editor who says he does not care to study the "best scholarship" and snidely dismisses same ("whatever that may be") is perhaps signalling any footnote will do if it fits with his preconceived POV notions.  That's fine for someone's personal blog space, but not fine for a good encyclopedia that insists everything be based on reliable sources--of  which there are many.  For starters it is highly controversial to say that Poland had some sort of right to its interwar Ukrainian lands that the US and Britain were obligated--for some reason--to defend. Rjensen 15:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Allies never promised to restore Polish borders. That is Polish POV. Rjensen 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland 

message: I wonder if I can seek some further assistance. I made an insertion about the involvement of FDR in the decisions about Poland. I foolishly did not provide footnotes.  Mr. Rjensen (above) removed it on the grounds that the assertions were unsupported. I have attempted, as you may see, to get him to discuss the substantial issues, not least that Roosevelt was instrumental in the conclusion of a secret agreement with Stalin to abandon the eastern parts of Poland including Lvov to the USSR at Tehran (not Yalta).  I feel frustrated because all I get from him is a rather condescending admonition to find out more and rely only on 'the best scholarship' whatever that may be. We all have our failings, but I wonder if anyone is interested, not in the finer points of NPOV (a rich seam for disputation of often doubtful significance) nor in generalities, but in the actual issues. A serious challenge has been made to FDR's conduct of an aspect of the war, supported by witnesses. Does anyone else feel that this is an issue that needs taking up?  I am disposed to make an insertion but I see no point in ping pong. Roger Arguile St. Bartholomew (Aug 24th.)  2006
::This is an advanced article on a topic with heavy POV. Roger Arguile inserted material about FDR's motivations based on a popular book about a fighter squadron--a book that made no pretense of scholarship about FDR. We have lots of fine scholarship listed in the references, and an editor who is truly interested will first engage that literature (and the scholarship on Churchill). An editor who says he does not care to study the "best scholarship" and snidely dismisses same ("whatever that may be") is perhaps signalling any footnote will do if it fits with his preconceived POV notions.  That's fine for someone's personal blog space, but not fine for a good encyclopedia that insists everything be based on reliable sources--of  which there are many.  For starters it is highly controversial to say that Poland had some sort of right to its interwar Ukrainian lands that the US and Britain were obligated--for some reason--to defend. Rjensen 15:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Allies never promised to restore Polish borders. That is Polish POV. Rjensen 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadening the debate - or starting it! 

message: I suggest that this article needs more information about FDR's personal life. The history of WWII is described in some detail, even though it's avilable in several other articles. On the other hand, the personal life of FDR, such as his relationship with his wife, mistress(es), children, etc. is described relatively briefly. Also, how about at least a few words about Eleanor's activities in this article? Profhobby 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal life

message: There seems to have been a rather disturbing defacement of this page.  The text clearly has a number of 'nots' inserted and removed throughout the text in order to attempt to convey the opposite meaning of the original wording, specifically those quotes related to his achievement and legacy.
131.107.0.73 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs cleanup.