Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 3

message: Sometime in the spring of 2005, the info about Roosevelt's portrait being on the dime was removed. When was this and who removed it?? 66.32.217.151 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dime link 

message: "Japanese-Americans continued to serve in the U.S. armed forces throughout the war, although they were not employed in the Pacific theatre."
This is not completely true.  There were a number volunteers out of the camps who enlisted, going through additional language training, who were deployed as Military Intelligence Service (MIS) soldiers in the Pacific Theater, although their existance had been kept classified until 2000.  I'll edit the article to delete the "although they were not employed in the Pacific theatre."
Tmurase 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese-American Internment 

message: This is a biography of FDR. This article therefore should focus exclusively on FDR's role, and leave the broader story to the main article.  Rjensen 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese internment

message: Hi, I would also like to bring up the neutrality of this article.  This article reads like my (New York) state-mandated history textbook.  I think we're all grown up now and we've learned that not everything was exactly sunshine and rainbows here.  Aside from that, the article makes a mis-step in saying "...he was controversial in his day but now is considered in the top tier of American presidents."  This isn't entirely true, particularly once you leave the Northeast, you talk to a Libertarian or a traditional Republican (i.e. one whose beliefs are in free market economics and limited government as opposed to Christanity), or you read Howard Zinn (yes, I figured Zinn would like him too).  The article paints FDR in a positive light that I don't believe most people would agree with, especially considering the crisis we're currently having with Social Security and the constant debt we've been in since FDR's presendency.  Additionally, while the New Deal did help the American economy, we can't ignore the fact that circumstances didn't significantly improve until World War II.  FDR's presidency lead us to believe two things that have been pestering American politics since WWII: that the government is responsible for the economy and that wars will lead us out of economic recession.  Both of these things are obviously wrong, if you look at Clinton's hands-off approach in light of the booming economy of the 1990's and the current Iraq "war" which is doing wonders for us (I thought oil prices were supposed to go DOWN as a result of an oil war, haha).
Now, I'm not saying I entirely agree with many of these facts; I actually like a lot of FDR's reforms.  I'm just trying to point out what I feel are some obvious disagreements with the article and with FDR himself.  I definitely think this article should have a neutrality flag on it, but I'm not 100% sure how to make it less biased.  Let me know what you think :)
Diane M. Napolitano 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes the article is full of POV.  It has to tell readers there are multiple perspectives.  It also has to have much less on his family and much more on FDR's.  As it is it largely ignotres his cabinet and top advisors like Louis Howe (not mentioned), the speechwriters like Rosenman  or even Harry Hopkins.  So what we have is too much private and not enough public FDR, and too much extraneous details about minor issues. Rjensen 16:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: There are a million facts about FDR. People using the multivolume biographies can write 100,000 words on him.  What should Wiki do--include all the wonderful details?? I suggest an encyclopedia has to focus on the big picture. Sara and Eleanor for example have their own articles and people who want details on them should go there.  We need to talk about his top advisors--Louis Howe, Harry Hopkins are ignored. That has to change. Rjensen 23:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Important? What should be in Wiki? 

message: Much of the dispute seems to revolve around how much information on Roosevelt's family should be included.  What about a separate article entitled Roosevelt Family much like the articles on the Bush Family and Kennedy Family?  The FDR article could include a brief discussion and link to the family article.  TMS63112 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those guidelines were originally implemented because some old web browsers would cut off any text past the 32K mark from text boxes like the ones we edit in, and under earlier versions of the wiki software you couldn't edit one section at a time. Many FAs these days are quite a bit longer. Having said that, it looks like someone tripped up reverting a vandal a while back and removed the "early life" section heading. Restoring that alone will neaten things up quite a bit. ～J.K. 03:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt family 

message: The article contains this paragraph:
:Despite Roosevelt's apparent inability to support civil rights, he was still perceived as a black-friendly threat in the American South. A popular anti-Roosevelt song declared: "You kiss the / I'll kiss the Jews / We'll stay in the White House / As long as we choose."
So who do they kiss first? --Fastfission 16:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing word