Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Restoration of article

This article could be used as a textbook example of "what's wrong with Wikipedia." Since I wrote the current version in April 2005, it has steadily deteriorated in quality and coherence under the impact of many random edits. Its grammar, syntax, spelling and punctuation have declined. Sections have been removed for no apparent reason. Irrelevant digressions and contradictory statements have been added. Factual statements have been changed to non-factual ones. Myths, opinions and conspiracy theories have crept back in. So now I have had to come back and redo much of what I did last year. I don't mind doing so, but this should not be necessary, and of course I can't keep doing so for the rest of time. Adam 06:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam's problem is that he distrusts the Wiki system of slow improvements. If he wants to challenge any changes he should do it here before erasing other people's work--that's called vandalism in the Wiki world. So I suggest he go through his changes one by one and see how good they are. 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I reject this view completely. If you disagree with any of my edits you are free to contest them. Adam 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Adam--the Wiki system calls for lots of people to join together. Some of them in fact are experts in American history, but we do welcome any Australian contributions. Your analysis of 1932 Democrats for example is wrong--where did you get it? Check the bibliography again (I provided nearly all those sources, by the way). Rjensen 06:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• If you disagree with any of my edits you are free to contest them.
• No-one at Wikipedia is allowed to claim "expert status" as a basis for having their edits accepted.
• So-called "experts" should be able to write a grammatical sentence.
• Most of the edits I restored were not made by "experts" but by the usual illiterate dimwits who make most edits to articles on high-profile subjects like this.

Adam 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam, well I confess my grammar and spelling are imperfect. I will be glad to corect your misstatements one by one. Starting with the misinterpretation of 1932, and your ignoring the interregum. Rjensen 07:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I of course have no objection to you or anyone else making relevant additions to the article. No doubt there is more that could be said about many things. But I see, for example, you have deleted the sentence about why Smith was not acceptable as a candidate in 1932. Why have you done this? Adam 07:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I am going offline now, so I will see what you come up with while I am gone. Blanket reversions will be reverted, others dealt with on merit. Since you asked earlier, my source for the US politics sections of the article was Ted Morgan's biography. I do not claim to be a particular expert on US domestic political history. My main concern with the damage done to this article (apart from the grammar etc) was with the foreign policy and World War II sections, on which I do claim some expertise. Adam 07:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Apart from one tendentious phrase, I have no problem with your latest edit. Most of it is expansion and rephrasing of existing points rather than "corrections of errors." Adam 05:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In general a very well written article. I have a little nit to pick, though. In the section Political Career you write "(The Encyclopedia Britannica...says that 'by careful exercises and treatments at Warm Springs he gradually recovered', although this is quite untrue)" Can you back up that claim with a more reliable source than the EB? Please don't invoke the encyclopedia then say you know better unless you can cite your source.--Joelw 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What claim? That the EB said what it said? I have quoted it. That the claim is untrue? This is common knowledge. Cite my source for what? Adam 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

EB is no longer a good reference source. Before the 1980s they had experts write their articles but now most are written by freelancers who do 20-50 articles at a time on a variety of subjects. The freelancers do not pretend to be experts and they don't say what sources they use. So it's no longer verifiable info. Recent comparisons with Wiki show EB full of errors. (As is Wiki). EB has no good way of removing errors but Wiki does. There are plenty of solid books that can be used--see the bibliography. Rjensen 01:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's Roosevelt buried?

^

Answer: Hyde Park, New York NoSeptember ^talk 02:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Third Term Precedent

The third term section as it is reads:

Following a precedent set by George Washington, no American President had ever sought a third term in office.

What about Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 run with the Bull Moose Party? I realize he never served two full terms, but doesn't this still count as a third term? If we are to use the much later 22nd Amendment as a guide, any term over 2 years is a full term.--Osprey39 08:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree. I've changed it so that it's now an uncontentious statement. JackofOz 09:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ulysses S. Grant sought a third-term in 1880. He led the balloting for the Republican nomination for the first 35 ballots. A stop-Grant movement became successful when supporters of trailing candidates James Blaine and John Sherman rallied behind James Garfield, who won the nomination on the 36th ballot, 399-306.

The no-third-term precedent was very strong, and was later put explictly into the Constitution. Grant and TR insisted it meant no-consecutive-3-terms. Most people disagreed with that interpetations and neither Grant nor TR was nominated.Rjensen 08:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

internment of Japanese etc

This article has to be about FDR and not about all the millions of things that happened to 140 million people on his watch. See separate articles for that. Rjensen 12:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree with your statement. Some of the deletions you made were well justified. However, the rational behind FDR's decision to intern 170,000+ people of Japanese descent through his Executive Order 9066 deserves a brief elaboration. I think a comprehensive elaboration should be compiled in the article "Japanese American internment"". The sentences with which I'm concerned contribute towards that brief elaboration of the military and political pressures FDR faced -- pressures also tainted by racism.

I think three sentences should remain: First, "Pressure came from the Democratic governor of California Culbert Olson, the Hearst newspapers and General John L. DeWitt, the U.S. Army Commander in California, whose simple attitude was that "a Jap is a Jap." Opponents of the suggestion were Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes, Attorney-General Francis Biddle and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who said that there was no evidence of Japanese-American involvement in espionage or sabotage." -- contributes to the second contested sentence which I think explicitly states FDR's rationale for his action.

Second, "A fight for Japanese-American civil rights meant a fight with influential Democrats, the Army, and the Hearst press and would have endangered Roosevelt's chances of winning California in 1944. Critics of Roosevelt's actions believe they were motivated in part by racism."

And finally, ""... Anyone who has traveled in the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European and American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results."" -- finishes the remainder of FDR's quote. It's abscence would have drastically sanitized FDR's statement which was explicitly racialist or racist in content. Yet, such ideas circulated widely among white Protestant Americans during that time period. To portray the internment of Japanese-Americans solely as an issue of national securtiy without any reference of the racism in wide circulation in the U.S. is a distortion of the record. Note the difference of treatment towards German-Americans and Italian-Americans during the same period. - Mitchumch 21:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

why I deleted poor quality info

The old version was full of useless details (for example the detailed rules regarding gold), and incorrect information (it is not true that 1/3 were unemployed). The WPA was falsely presented as a 1933 program when it was 1935--a very important difference. The CCC employed 250,000, not "millions". It had too much detail on events not directly connected to FDR (such as details of Supreme Court decisions or NRA or industrial production data or how historians evaluate the overall New Deal statistics) that are best covered elsewhere. The long Glass quote is not very meaningful (Glass never before or after showed an interest in protecting poor orphans). This is a bio of FDR. There is a full article on the New Deal. The jokes ought to go in the TRIVIA section, not main body--such as the good joke about gold and booze. It is important to mention Harry Hopkins in 1933. Rjensen 00:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all of your deletions were unjustified. I'm putting them some of the things you deleted back in. RJII 00:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As stated, I will go on deleting RJII's edits until he/she stops adding opinionated, trivial and unnecessary material to this article. (Why does this article attract so many cranks?) Adam 08:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, stop your personal attacks. I'm not a "crank." And, as I stated I will go on including sourced, relevant information. That's the way Wikipedia works. But, you're the one in the wrong. There is nothing trivial about the fact that FDR confiscated private gold (and that he decided on a 21 cent price based on "lucky numbers.") There is nothing trivial that the AAA and NRA were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is nothing trivial that he raised incomes taxs up to 90% on the top income bracket, and then proposed a 99.5% tax which failed. There is nothing trivial about the fact that he issued an Executive Order to tax all incomes over $25,000 100%! I'm sorry if this stuff tarnishes the Roosevelt myth, but it's the truth and it needs to be told. That's one of the great things about Wikipedia --we're able to tell the whole story instead of the "official" censored version of events. RJII 23:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's still of political interest today. The odds of a Wikipedia article attracting POV merchants are directly proportional to those of its topic starting an argument in at least one bar or house of parliament anywhere in the developed world. ～J.K. 10:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The facts are fine, but I think that external links to opinionated articles in the web are clear violations of the wikipedia neutrality principle. ChS 01:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

How about we source this article properly? Just having a list of references at the bottom doesn't do it if there are no footnotes in the text linking to those references. RJII 23:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help a lot if you would stop inserting biased external links in the middle of the article. It is fine that you add information about the the tax raises, however it is completely inappropriate to misuse them to put external link to propaganda material in the web. This is a very clear violation of the neutrality principle. ChS 01:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of putting a link in the middle of the article, is so the information won't be deleted. The link is the source. The source I provided is from a professional historian with a doctorate in history, who specializes in economic history. That's not a violation of an NPOV policy. RJII 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a source. The main purpose of the linked article is to propagate a very controversial and minority opinion, and therefore a clear violation of the neutrality principle. Could you provide us with a more factual source? ChS 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a source. A credible source. A professional historian. Just the fact that the author has a POV, in that it he opposes a progressive tax (a pretty mainstream position even), does not mean it's not a credible source. RJII 02:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to question the credibility of the source, but it is plain wrong to put an opinionate article into an encyclopedia as the main source for some simple and objective facts. ChS 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. And, it's not "simple" facts. Few people are aware of these facts. Find just ONE textbook that mentions that Roosevelt proposed a 99.5 percent tax on incomes over $100,000 and then issued an order to confiscated ALL income over $25,000. It's not common knowledge, therefore it's crucial that it's sourced. There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting an "opininated source" in an article. Most sources are opinionated. RJII 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• • There have been 500 edits in the last 6 weeks alone, so any requirement that each edit have its own source note would make for a strange article indeed. I think it's better this way, and if people challenge any point then that point can be examined here on TALK and footnoted as needed. The references listed cover all the information involved. Almost no facts are in dispute--instead there are moralistic judgments about whther what FDR did was good or evil. Sources don't help much there. Rjensen 00:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If someone adds information and adds a source below but doesn't footnote to the source, how is anyone to know which source it is from? If the person that put the edit in is gone, then when someone requests a source for information, nobody knows where the information came from and the information is deleted from the article. We have to put footnotes, especially with controversial articles like this. It's the best way. See anarcho-capitalism for example --that's HIGHLY controversial and experienced a huge amount of edit warring, but now that the information is sourced and footnoted, it's realtively stable and a featured article. If someone wants to know where the information came from, there's a direct link to the source right there. The way this FDR article is now, is totally unscholarly with dubious credibility. The article is basically worthless for any reader that wants to have some comfort that the information is correct. RJII 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the phrase "Roosevelt looked at the evidence available to him: the Japanese in the Philippines had collaborated with the Japanese invasion troops; the Japanese in California had been strong supporters of Japan in the war against China. There was evidence of espionage compiled by code-breakers that decrypted messages to Japan from agents in North America and Hawaii before and after Pearl Harbor. These MAGIC cables were kept secret from all but those with the highest clearance, such as Roosevelt, lest the Japanese discover the decryption and change their code." because we do not know whether Roosevelt considered this evidence or even whether it was presented to him. Albeit he probably did, we can not make that assertation.

The evidence has now been published and is now referenced in the article: Keith Robar, Intelligence, Internment & Relocation: Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066: How Top Secret "MAGIC" Intelligence Led to Evacuation (2000) Rjensen 19:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Gold seizure

Why is it being deleted by Rjensen and Adam that FDR ordered private gold be turned in for paper money? This is EXTREMELY notable. RJII 16:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's being deleted because it is not directly connected to FDR and this is a biography of FDR. Hoover's people wrote that order and FDR only signed it. If anyone thinks it's an important issue they need to FIRST write up a serious article on the matter. In any case it's a New Deal issue not a FDR matter. (FDR did get interested in gold issues later in 1933, but not first week). Rjensen 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. It's directly connected to FDR. FDR signed the order. He's the one that stole Americans' gold. I don't see how anyone could think that is not notable. Enough of this censorship. RJII 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And, no that is not part of the "new deal." That and the devaluation was simply one of the ways he obtained money to help pay for the "new deal." RJII 17:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's really important write an article explaining what happened, tell all sides of the controversy, mention the Supreme Court case, and give some references. If it's not important enough for an article then it should not get mentioned in bio of FDR. remember: NO POV. Rjensen 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What?? There are lots of facts in this article that don't have an article of their own. What are you talking about "NO POV"? How is it POV to mention a FACT? It's not. Deleting fact because you don't like they reveal is what's POV. RJII 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII writes (today) of FDR that "He's the one that stole Americans' gold." I suggest RJII is calling FDR a thief--or am I misreading that?. That is POV and is not allowed in Wiki. RJII should be able to explain the importance of the gold issue in a separate article, or else the readers will be utterly baffled by cryptic comments in a bio of FDR (there were of course many other government officials, bankers, etc involved in the gold decisions). To go beyond POV, RJII migh ask the question: was the gold policy good or bad for most Americans, and for the economy? Who was hurt by it? Who was helped? What did the courts say about it? What did the congress say? He migh also tell us what sources he is using so we can help him evaluate them Rjensen 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you not realize that there is a difference between the article and the talk page? Of course he was a thief. I can be as POV as I want to be on the talk page. All I'm saying is that it needs to be noted in the article that FDR ordered Americans to turn in their gold for paper money. You need to stop deleting sourced and notable information. 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No POV. If you think a person is a thief, you should start your own blog. But please don't put POV into Wiki. You might read the Surpreme Court decisions upholding the law at[1] and tell us where the Court went wrong. Rjensen 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? I'm not saying I want it to state in the article that FDR was a thief. That's just my personal opinion. What I am saying is that I want it to state that FDR ordered that Americans turn in their gold for paper money. Stop censorship the information. RJII 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

why mention it in a bio--it belongs under New Deal. There were so many other things happening that were quite important. The president signed thousands of orders written by Treasury, State, War department etc that he did not write. They are not part of his biography. Rjensen 19:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not part of the New Deal. "Hey I've got a new deal for you. I'm taking your gold!" RJII 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What studies are you relying upon? Rjensen 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not relying on any studies. It's not a matter of studies. It's just a matter of reporting the facts. FDR ordered that people turn in their gold and get paper money in return. RJII 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The only relevant "fact" here is that you are an opinionated anti-FDR crank, one of a long line of such cranks which this article has attracted ever since it was written, which is why I had to rewrite the whole article last year to get rid of all the POV garbage it had become filled with. As I said at your talk page, when I get time I will go through the article again and remove all the recent POV and unencyclopaedic detritus, including no doubt most of your edits. Adam 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a "crank." Stop your personal attacks. But, you have explained why the article is of such low quality now. And, you're free to remove information, just as I'm free to put it back in. I happen to enjoy Sisyphian tasks, and can continue indefinitely. But, you're wrong to remove sourced, notable, relevant information. We'd all appreciate it if you were more reasonable. RJII 02:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

When statements are challenged they have to be backed by sources. So will RJii please tell us the sources he is using so we can evaluate them and not him. Rjensen 02:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My source is Executive Order 6102. I've already stated the source in the article. You deleted it. RJII 02:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I found the text of the Order in an article for you. Here you go: [2] RJII 02:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the link to the article of Srdja Trifkovic A Tale of Two Fascists: FDR and Mussolini, in the critics section. This article simply did not fit in the reference of a serious Encyclopaedia. What Trifkovic wrote is not a critic on FDR's politic but a dumb agitation against him. The author compares FDR with Mussolini and writes that FDR is more fascist than Mussolini. --Sebvogel 10:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good move. the link doesn't belong. Rjensen 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Every bank closed March 4 1933

There were 48 states and delaware was #48 to close Delawar shuts banks March 4 Rjensen 02:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Restrictions" doesn't meant closure. The states varied in their orders for a holiday. Some were closed and some were open with deposit restrictions, etc. RJII 02:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

all banks were "closed" in the sense they could not give out money. Most banks kept "open" in the sense that tellers were on duty to explain to people what was going on. also people could come in and use their safe deposit boxes. See detailed stories in NY Times every day. Rjensen 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Some just had deposit restrictions. I provided a source. [3] RJII 02:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

need source for intent of devaluation

Rjensen has put this in the article: "After January 1934 he then devalued the international value of the dollar by 40% in terms of gold, hoping to stimulate exports. [Freidel 1990 p 101-2]" I'd like to see the exact quote from that source so we can verify if you've interpreted it correctly. Does it actually say that that was FDR's intent? Let's see a quote. Thanks. RJII 02:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Presidential Papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1934, Item 9 Excerpts from the Press Conference. January 15 "It has, I think, been felt by people on the other side [of the Atlantic] as well as here that if we had not pursued the gold-purchase policy, the actual exchange-value rate on gold would be four dollars instead of five dollars. The other result of maintaining the dollar-pound and dollar-franc ratio as high as it has been was our ability to get rid of a great many of our export surpluses. Cotton has been moving out. Of course, you know one of our objectives is to eliminate the very large surplus which has been overhanging the domestic prices. The same thing applies to wheat and everything else. Our objective has been to get rid of the surpluses. We got rid of a great deal of cotton and we got rid of a great deal of copper, for instance. At the same time the import trade has increased enormously during the past three months, since the dollar has gone down in terms of pounds. The result has been a very excellent one from a general economic domestic point of view. This revaluation of not more than 60 percent and not below 50 percent should enable us to maintain a fairly reasonable exchange ratio with other Nations.... They [Britain] have a managed pound, absolutely managed, far more so than we have ever thought of managing the dollar. . . ." Rjensen 04:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So Friedel wasn't a proper source for that then, right? RJII 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Freidel summarized FDR's statements. p 101 mentions cotton and wheat sales for example and the heavy pressure from rural senators. Rjensen 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Tending towards POV

"Universally called FDR, he was both loved and hated in his day but today many consider him one of the greatest of American presidents."

Since many people consider FDR the worst American President this sentence might better read: Universally called FDR, he was both loved and hated in his day and such strong feelings continue to this day. --BHC 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

the strong emotions have pretty well died out. He died 60 years ago and only the very old remember his controversial years before 1940. Rjensen 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that today many people don't actually remember FDR I still think the introduction paints an overly rosy view of a controversial figure. --BHC 10:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Many people consider FDR the worst president? well no--no evidence whatever for that. The press does surveys all the time and he comes out #3 in all groups, including conservatives. See for example the right-wing Federalist Society poll in Wall Street Journal. (#3 two years running.) Furthermore FDR's variance is small--controversial president = Nixon. Now some policies are controversial (esp NRA and AAA, which were the first ones to be dropped), and maybe the Wagner act, but lots of programs are hailed. Milton Friedman for example hails the relief programs. Rjensen 10:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, go ahead... do a web search on "fdr 'worst president'" and see 131,000 hits--it's no accident they're found in the company of each other.

People aren't asked to name the worst President and the best President in that survey with the results being weighted. Just because a number of people think FDR was a great President does not mean a number of other people don't consider him an awful one. I realize this is your pet article and you like FDR a lot but the article should remain balanced, I'm just looking for fairness, not to insult FDR.--BHC 07:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The surveys of 100+ historians, political scientists, lawyers and economists rank FDR #3 with little disagreement. That was the right wing survey, no less! The article correctly summarized the surveys of scholars and public opinion. What happened is that the old hatreds of the 1930s have died away. Look up "FDR as worst president" on google and you will find people saying "my old uncle used to say that years ago". Yes, and that generation has died out. I challenge anyone to come up with evidence that more than 10 scholars rank FDR low. Rjensen 07:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal/Federalist Society survery made specific mention of how most other polls tended to lean left (since academics and historians tend to lean that way) so they made a specific effort to have an equal number of conservatives and liberals on the poll. It's not a conservative survery. In fact the WSJ news section was found to be more liberal than the New York Times in a recent study: http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf The journal has seperate parts, conservative editorial section, liberal news section.--BHC 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the opinion of BHC. I have little to support my opinion, but it does seem biased. Cheesy 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement is literally correct that both liberal and conservative specialists rank him in top 3. Perhaps BHC has a different personal ranking, perhaps he agrees with #3. But no one can dispute the consensus of specialists, which is what Wiki needs to report. Rjensen 18:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not neutral POV. (signed after the fact) Mark 206.124.31.221 04:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Presidential ranking

Note that the conservative Federalist-Society / Wall Street Journal ranking of presidents in 2000 put FDR as #3 see [4] Rjensen 20:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that no economists were surveyed. [5] RJII 05:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We should ridicule the Wall Street Journal for its ignorance of economics. But hey: when FDR took office in March 1933 the Fed index of industrial production was: 100.0

• after 4 years (March 1937) 219.8 doubled!!!
• after 8 years (March 1941) 280.1
• after 12 years (March 1945) 426.9 he QUADRUPLED the industrial economy!!!! Pretty impressive numbers. Meanwhile unemployment fell from 25% in March 33 to 2% in 1945. If you live by numbers you have to praise by the numbers. Rjensen 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The results are not the opinion of the Wall Street Journal. It's the results of a survey that was conducted in conjunction with the Federalist Society. RJII 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Franklin Roosevelt

Franklin Roosevelt was the preaident of course. HE was the 32nd president. I was bit suprised he died of the death. Just to tell you.

You're not the only one who's surprised that someone died of the death. JackofOz 00:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Delano

The IPA pronunciation for Delano is frustrating. I'm a fairly intelligent guy (or so I like to think), but I can't make sense of it. Some of the symbols in [dıleınoυ] don't appear to be on the IPA chart for English, i.e. the [oυ]. I mostly bring this up because it's nagging me. How the hell do you pronounce it?--Cúchullain t c 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I had never seen that pronunciation before reading this article (generally you hear Delano rendered [ˡdɛlənoʊ]). I'm not 100% sure what they're going for here, since ı is not IPA (while i and ɪ are), but it's either deelayno (dīlānō, as many American dictionaries would explain it) if 'i' is what ı is supposed to be, or dilayno (short i, like 'city,' dǐlānō in American dictionary pronunciation guides). No stress is indicated, and since the popular pronunciation of Delano is apparently inaccurate the stress may fall on the wrong syllable in the popular pronunciation, too. I'm not familiar with this pronuncaition; could someone clear these two points up? JordeeBec 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone mistook pseudo-Greek IPA letters for actual IPA. [ı] and [υ] should probably be [ɪ] and [ʊ] respectively but I can't be sure, because in proper IPA [ʋ] actually represents a consonant sound which doesn't exist in English (a labiodental approximant, the unusual "w" sound you hear from some German speakers). Frankly, I'm tempted to remove the whole thing as it stands as an unsourced irrelevancy, but a pronunciation for his name would be useful — I can't be the only one who can never remember if it's "rose"evelt or "ruse"evelt. ～J.K. 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion IPA ought to be banned from Wikipedia, since most computers read it as no more than a row of little boxes. His name was pronounced Rose-velt. Adam 00:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Overenthusiastic techies; can't live with 'em, can't live without them. I generally find it less bad than the other options, but here the pseudo-English will do fine. ～J.K. 00:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, his name was pronounced Rose-velt. Roose-velt has always been a common mispronunciation but his name was Dutch and in the Dutch language "oo" is pronounced with a very open "oh" sound. --Revolución hablar ver 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously ridiculous that a double "o" might be pronounced like a long version of a single "o". ;-) ～J.K. 09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Morgenthau Plan

Any objections to inserting a reference to roosevelts signing of the morgenthau plan?

i.e. At the second Quebec Conference in 1944 winston Churchill drafted and together with President Roosevelt signed a toned down version of the original Morgenthau Plan, where they pledged to convert Germany after her unconditional surrender "into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character."

I feel it should be mentioned since this ended up influencing U.S. occupation policy in Germany in the years 1945-1947 (Through amongst others the Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067[6] which was a basis for US Occupation policy until July 1947, at which time policy shifted towards the Marshal plan) Stor stark7 23:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

FDR did embrace the plan in late 44 but in fact no implementation was ever ordered by him or Truman. the plan was dead by the time the US actually occupied Germany. There is a neo-nazi effort to resurrect it but that does not belong in the FDR article Rjensen 00:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don’t bring in emotional issues such as the neo-nazis. Ok so they profit from the plan becoming more widely known, but it’s not wikipedias purpose to be a tool for political education in correct thinking, rather the goal should be to provide as accurate facts as possible.

I presume you’ve read, or will read, Michael Beschloss, The Conquerors; Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler’s Germany 1941-1945. (2002) ISBN 0-7432-4454-0

Page 95: Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) had compiled a handbook for the occupation of Germany which stated that the German industry should be brought back into operation as soon as possible after the surrender, every German must be promised two thousand calories of food per day (pg. 72) etc.

After being handed a memo on this by Morgenthau Roosevelt strongly complained against the SHAEF handbook as being to lenient on the German population. At a cabinet meeting, he said that the Germans could live happily and peacefully on soup from soup kitchens if she couldn’t make money for herself.

Page 169 After Roosevelts complaint on the SHAEF handbook, Stimson and McCloy had been working on a directive for Eisenhower. JCS 1067 had much of the sound of the Morgenthau Plan. Eisenhower was to combat starvation, but was not to rehabilitate the economy. Germans must be made to understand that all necessary steps will be taken to guarantee against a third attempt by them to conquer the world. Germany was not to be liberated, but rather occupied as a defeated nation. Eisenhower was to take no steps looking towards Germany’s economic revival. There were loopholes though, there were to be no large-scale immediate destruction of mines and factories.

Page 170 Thankful for JCS 1067’s militant language, Morgenthau chose to ignore how McCloy had used the directive to weaken his plan with his loopholes.

Page 196 Boethinger told the president that people down the line in the army didn’t understand JCS 1067. It wasn’t workable. The Germans mustn’t be forced to stew in their own juice. Roosevelts reply was: Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!. Asked if he wanted the Germans to starve he replied; Why not?

Pg 212, the last time Morgenthau Spoke with Roosevelt, just before his death, the President told Morgenthau that he was with him one hundred percent.

Page 233 On may 10, 1945 Truman signed the JCS 1067. Eisenhower pleaded with Truman not to make it public, lest it embarrass the British who thought it much to harsh. Morgenthau told his staff that it was a big day for the treasury, and that he hoped that someone doesn’t recognize it as the Morgenthau Plan.

Page 277 In the winter of 1946-1947 President Truman sent former President Herbert Hoover on a tour of Western Germany. In his situation reports Hoover warned that the economy of the defeated land had sunk to the lowest level in a hundred years.

JCS 1067 was in effect until July 1947, when it was replaced by JCS 1779, which decreed that an orderly and prosperous Europe requires the contributions of a stable and productive Germany.

John Dietrich, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (2002) ISBN 1-892941-90-2

Page 85 The U.S Senate’s judiciary Committee asserted, during the first two years of the allied occupation the Treasury program of industrial dismantlement was vigorously pursued by American officials.

Vladimir Petrov, an expert on the financial aspects of the occupation wrote:

’By forbidding the American Army to maintain price, wage and market controls, it literally decreed, as a State Department official put it, economic chaos. In this way the treasury’s view that the extreme disruption of German economy was not in conflict with Allied interests became official American policy.

Page 88. By early 1947, economic recovery throughout western Europe suddenly stalled and went into a tailspin, coinciding with the necessity for facing up to the problems of Germany at the Moscow Conference. Petrov concluded that The victorious Allies …delayed by several years the economic reconstruction of the war torn continent, a reconstruction which subsequently cost the US billions of dollars’’.

Page 98 The United States Congress warned that the continuation of current policies

…can mean only one of two things, (a) that a considerable part of the German population must be liquidated through diceases, malnutrition and slow starvation for a period of years to come, with resultant dangers to the rest of Europe from pestilence and the spread of plagues that know no boundaries; or (b) the continuation of large occupying forces to hold down unrest and the affording of relief mainly drawn from the United States to prevent actual starvation.

Page 103 Field Marshal Montgomery, the commander of the British zone concluded that the loss of life in the winter 1945-46 was going to be very heavy. The daily ration for an average adult was then 1,042 calories, which Montgomery said meant, we are going to let them starve: gradually.

Page 108 Conditions in Germany reached their lowest point in 1947. Living conditions were considered worse in 1947 than in 1945 or 1946. At an average ration of 1040 calories a day malnutrition was at its worst stage in post war Germany. Herbert Hoover asserted that that ration was hardly more than the ration which caused thousands in the Nazi concentration camps to die from starvation.

Stor stark7 16:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep the Morgenthau plan details to its own article. This is a bio of FDR who died before the war ended. Rjensen 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just used the citations to show that things aren’t as clear-cut as your reply made them seem. The subject is full of grey areas. But fine, have it your way. Stor stark7 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Shouldn't articles with links to Franklin Delano Roosevelt be corrected to link to Franklin D. Roosevelt? I notice many go to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and have for a long time.

Friedman quote removed - Friedman misrepresented

The article quotes freedom and makes it looks like he thought the New Deal was a good idea, but he doesn't. The quote I provided says this: "Roosevelt's policies were very destructive. Roosevelt's policies made the depression longer and worse than it otherwise would have been. What pulled us out of the depression was the natural resilience of the economy and WW2." I feel if you're going to quote, him this much should be clear. And, he definitely should be quoted as he's one of the most respected economists alive. RJII 04:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not the half of it. This deliberate misrepresentation of Friedman is the result of taking his comment completely out of context. Friedman begins by saying the following:

"By 1935, the New Deal was in its second year and still gaining steam. In later years, Rose and I came to be among the best-known critics of the growth in centralized government that the New Deal initiated. Yet, ironically, the New Deal was a lifesaver for us personally. The new government programs created a boom market for economists, especially in Washington."

He goes on to discuss how it got them jobs in an anti-semitic environment, and he continues to the statement that has been provided out-of-context. Any fool can see that he was reflecting on his past [seemingly ironic] ignorance at the time he was starting his career. The whole chapter in which he was misquoted was a reflection on how FDR's trashing of the economy was great, for him and other economists. He goes on to prove it with statements such as the one you quoted. Mark 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Look to Norway"-speech

Roosevelt held a speech in 1942 were he among other things stated: "If there is anyone who still wonders why this war is being fought, let him look to Norway. If there is anyone who has any delusions that this war could have been averted, let him look to Norway; and if there is anyone who doubts the democratic will to win, again I say, let him look to Norway." and "any nation seeking to resist tyranny and build democracy need only 'Look to Norway'"

This was an important motivational boost to the German-occupied Norwegian people and resistance during WW2. It has since been quoted numerous times. A Google for "Look to Norway" gives 11400 hits. I suppose this was mostly noticed by Norwegians, but I wonder if the speech is totally unknown in the US or elsewere? Does anyone have info on this? If so could it be added to the article if it is deemed notable enough? Inge 12:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had read 'most everything on FDR and don't recall anyone mentioning that speech. If it had an impact in Europe it should be included. Rjensen 13:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some hits from the US I could find on Google: Duluth Superior article, Quoted in a speech by President Clinton, US Department of State magazine. It certainly had an impact amongst Norwegians. Inge 14:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Norway!! That must've been back in them days before Norway was part of NATO, ie. part of the worst arms rase ever.--Ezeu 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In 1942 Norway was occupied by Germany. Roosevelt was referring to the unprovoced attack by the Germans, the Norwegian will for peace and democracy and the steadfast resistance from the Norwegian government and people. I suppose it was also a kick against those in the US who still argued against US involvement in the war. NATO was established four years after the war, in 1949. Inge 09:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I believe this to be a "Good Article" on it's way to being a featured article, it looks like it's been forgotten about. Compliments to the editors. SeanMack 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Early life

I will not accept the repeated removal of the "early life" section and its replacement by the illiterate rubbish that was included in its place. I have restored this section and will go on doing so as often as it is deleted. Adam 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cause of Roosevelt's paralysis

I'd like to change the second and third paragraphs under "Private crisis" section to the following two paragraphs (just the text is shown below, I will fix up the references):

"In August 1921, while the Roosevelts were vacationing at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Roosevelt contracted an illness characterized by: fever; protracted symmetric, ascending paralysis of the upper and lower extremities; facial paralysis; bladder and bowel dysfunction; numbness; and dysesthesia. The symptoms gradually resolved except for paralysis of the lower extremities. The unquestioned diagnosis at the time was paralytic poliomyelitis, which was fitting because polio was epidemic in the northeastern United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Yet his age (39 years) and many features of the illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome (an autoimmune peripheral neuropathy). A peer-reviewed study published in 2003, using Bayesian analysis, found that six of eight posterior probabilities favored a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome over poliomyelitis. Regardless of the cause, the result was that Roosevelt was totally and permanently paralyzed from the waist down. He could sit up and, with aid of leg braces, stand upright, but could not walk.

Although the paralysis (whether from poliomyelitis or Guillain-Barré syndrome) had no cure at the time, for the rest of his life Roosevelt refused to accept that he was permanently paralyzed. He tried a wide range of therapies, but none had any effect. Nevertheless, he became convinced of the benefits of hydrotherapy, and in 1926 he bought a resort at Warm Springs, Georgia, where he founded a hydrotherapy center for the treatment of polio patients which still operates as the Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation (with an expanded mission). Furthermore, after he became President, he helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that supported the rehabilitation of victims of paralytic polio and the discovery of the polio vaccines."

Since this is a major change, and since the new information casts doubt on the previously countlessly repeated and unquestioned assertion that Roosevelt's paralysis was caused by polio, I thought it would be good idea to start a discussion thread to give a chance for others to disagree.

Big change is factual information initially described in a peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Medical Biography [7], of which I was a co-author and which I can add as a reference in the Roosevelt article. Also, information on Roosevelt's work related to polio is added. Also, several unreferenced statements that are peripheral at best (historians speculate, escape from mother) are deleted. The edited section is about the same length and more factually correct. I have tried to retain as much of the original as possible.

I would ask anyone who objects to the changes to please read the published article [8] first.

In the future, to help shorten the Roosevelt article and provide more information on Roosevelt's paralytic illness, I would be willing to further shorten this section within the main article and start a separate article on Roosevelt's paralytic illness.

Dagoldman 06:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job! 206.124.31.221 05:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "change 'overcame crippling polio' in intro to 'overcame a crippling paralytic illness'" wouldn't "overcame paralytic illness" be sufficient? 206.124.31.221 06:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree "a crippling" is not needed and redundant. Dagoldman 06:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt leading the allies

The allied alliance had been in existence effectively since Britain and France allied with Poland in 1939 and Neville Chamberlain declared that Britain and France would offer all support in their power to Poland, Greece and Romania. Whatever you want to take as the exact date of the formation of the Allies in the second world war, it was certainly in 1939. Therefore Roosevelt cannot have been their leader as it says in this article as America did not join the war until 1941. I would appreciate comments on this and if people agree a change to the wording to reflect this fact. A very good article on this topic is available on this Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II.

Roosevelt funded the war before the US entered--and thereby shaped the policies. Britain would have surrendered without massive US $$$ and munitions (as well as ships). USSR got the same help after it was invaded (whether Stalin needed it as much as Churchill is debatable.) Rjensen 13:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that constitutes "leading the allies." 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

the allies consisted of a lot of countries--like Australia, Canada, Britain, Free France, Norway, Brazil, China, etc in addition to USSR. FDR was the leader for all except the USSR which was mostly independent (and thus barely an ally) Rjensen 04:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you think funding the war behind the back of Congress and the American People before finally goading Japan into war constitutes "leading the allies." 206.124.31.221 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

there was plenty of secret diploacy but ALL funding was approved by Congress before and after 1941. no exceptions. As for the poor goaded Japanese, they should have cooperated with their neighbors better. Rjensen 05:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing conciliatory toward the Japanese—only pointed to the goading. You still haven't indicated why his behavior constituted "leading the allies." It seems to me Churchill lead the allies. 206.124.31.221 05:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) More to the point, he would have to be a hypocrite or a liar or both to "lead" a war he claimed to want nothing to do with. The "leadership" claim—especially before December 1941—has no merit. 206.124.31.221 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

lots of merit--FDR in fact simultaneously led the allies and tried to keep the US out of combat. That's been well known for 65 years so welcome to the world of history!! His goal was to advance the USA and most people think he did pretty well--except for the Nazis and Japanese who liked him even less than some American critics. Rjensen 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I knew he was a hypocrite, but for the sake of the point I was supposing he wasn't. This wasn't the only thing he was a hypocrite about. 206.124.31.221 05:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC) BTW, regardless of the hypocrisy, he still didn't "lead the allies." 206.124.31.221 05:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Hypocrisy"--my that's a weak complaint to make against a historical figure who got things done. You want him to tell the enemy what the plans are? Rjensen 05:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well...I guess you could euphemistically call what he did "getting things done." You can blow off the claim of hypocrisy too, but you basically agreed he was being a hypocrite. I guess there are a lot of people who agree with the concept that "the ends justify the means." Too bad their weren't any (good) results from "taking action." 206.124.31.221 05:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Roosevelt with Saudi Arabia King

I keep on deleting that piture with Roosevelt and the Saudi King but someone keeps on putting it back up. I think every picture on a Wiki article is a picutre that should have significant meaning. But that picutre has no meaning or purpose to be put up their what so ever. Is the person who keeps on putting it back up trying to prove a point?

it's a very important picture. FDR went to the Middle East and promised that if the King supported WW2 the US would protect his kingdom. That promise is still in effect and the cornerstone of US policy in region--Bush did go to war in 1991 to fulfill the promise. Rjensen 05:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the picture is significant. I'm not sure if was taken at/around Cairo, Teheran or Yalta. Once facet of significance is WHY would FDR be meeting with a Saudi King, a seemingly (at the time) insignificant player since while oil had been found, it was not being produced during WWII. Clearly (in hindsight) aligning Saudia Arabia with the US was already under serious consideration even in WWII. DEddy 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo was taken on a US warship on the ocean somewhere near Egypt. Rjensen 02:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Shameful Bias

The bias in this article is just shameful. It's not a "good article."

Roosevelt compounded the errors of his predecessors and guaranteed that the Great Depression would last through World War II. Described as a "failure of capitalism," the Great Depression was anything but. It was the failure of idiots like FDR who knew nothing about economics but wanted to play with the system anyway. The resilience of the human spirit is the only thing that got the United States through his disastrous make-work presidency.

"Though all of this [Hoover's failed socialistic policies] was a recipe for higher unemployment, labor unions enthusiastically supported Hoover's labor market interventionism—interventionism that would be radically expanded under President Roosevelt..."—DiLorenzo, How Capitalism Saved America, p167

"In reality, FDR's economic policies made the Great Depression much worse; caused it to last much longer than it otherwise would have; and established interventionist precedents that have been a drag on economic prosperity and threat to liberty to this day."—DiLorenzo, How Capitalism Saved America, p179 (introduction to ch. 10—How the New Deal Crippled Capitalism.)

"Many Americans believe [Roosevelt's] New Deal programs rescued the country from the grips of the Depression. In fact, under FDR, unemployment averaged a whopping 18 percent from 1933 to 1940.

"One biographer said that there was no one more ignorant of economics than FDR. It showed. FDR knew nothing about how wealth was created. The legislation he called for was a patchwork of absurdities, sometimes at odds with each other, and sometimes even at odds with themselves."—Woods, Thomas E. Jr, A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

Roosevelt "took charge of our government when it was comparatively simple, and for the most part confined to the essential functions of government, and transformed it into a highly complex, bungling agency for throttling businesses and bedeviling the private lives of free people. It is no exaggeration to say that he took the government when it was a small racket and made a large racket out of it."—Ebeling, Richard M, "Monetary Central Planning and the State, Part XVI; The New Deal and its Critics," Freedom Daily 9, Feb 1998, p15.

"The irony is that even if Roosevelt had helped to lift the spirits of the American people in the depths of the depression—an uplift for which no compelling documentation exists—that achievement only led the public to labor under an illusion. After all, the root cause of the prevailing malaise was the continuation of the depression. Had the masses understood that the New Deal was only prolonging the depression, they would have had good reason to reject it and its vaunted leader."—Higgs, Robert, Against Leviathan, p34.

This article isn't even CLOSE to being up to reasonable standards that any Wikipedia reader would expect.

SHAME! (signed after the fact) Mark 206.124.31.221 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (there are others I'm not hunting down and signing)

the article is pretty good. Perhaps out anonymous poster has a better plan to solve 24% unemployment and massive poverty? It would be a shame to keep it secret. Rjensen 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly think the Great Depression would not have ended if it wasn't for all that intervention? You think the economy would just stayed in a perpetual standstill until the State come to the rescue? That's unfathomable. It never would have been a "Great" Depression in the first place. It would have been a short depression with a natural market-driven recovery. Of course, we can't prove this, because you can't see what naturally would have occured if it weren't for the centralized control over the economy by policitians. Do the same things that Roosevelt did in the midst of a recession today and you'll see another great depression commence. RJII 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a previous recession in the early 1920s, but since nothing was done to "fix" it, it did not turn into a "Great Depression"—unlike FDR's fiasco.

Sure...stop playing games with the monetary system, which is what started and perpetuated the trouble. Learn a little something: http://www.mises.org

what about the 25% unemployed in March 1933--what are your plans for them??????? Rjensen 19:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of "stop playing games with the monetary system" didn't you understand? The order in which events unfolded was no accident. E.G. how he made the same mistakes--only worse: http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/

actually the article is about Franklin Roosevelt who became president March 4, 1933--when EVERY bank was closed and 25% were unemployed. He did something. Critics say he should have done something else--what??? The critics turn out to be speechless and planless. They have zero to suggest. Rjensen 01:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously being deliberately obtuse. Monkeying with the monetary system and increasing government caused the problems. You don't fix it by (in this case) "doing something." You do it by undoing the something that caused it.

I may be missing something here, but FDR didn't take office until March 1933, by which time the depression had already been the Great Depression for three years, and was obviously in a different league to any previous recession. Clearly it was not a self-correcting recession, it was a complete collapse of the world trading system. And if any politicians are to be blamed for that it must be Hoover and Mellon, not FDR. The Depression was the culmination of a decade of free-market, pro-business Republican rule. Adam 01:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoover's adminstration was definitely not laissez-faire. There was the Smoot-Hawley tariff act --protectionism which brough on a world tariff war, there were huge increases in income tax rates (from 25-63% on the top rate), and a 2 cent tax (30 cents in today's money) was levied against all bank checks (this further aggravated the monetary contraction). The depression was brought on due to government intervention and then lengthened due to more intervention by FDR (who then created make-work programs that were only "necessary" because his further harming of the economy made them necessary). RJII 02:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not clear. If you read my comments, the entire fiasco was not blamed on him, anyway. It was caused by people who, like him, did not understand economics, and was made worse by him. It was not the "culmination of a decade of free-market, pro-business Republican rule." You've been reading too many history texts colored by "progressive" propaganda. It took wrestling a monopoly of the monetary system to the government, then abusing it, to cause the mess. Further government irresponsibility made it worse. As they say, "Go figure!"

BTW, the quotations I provided were not by Republicans (to my knowledge.) If you want to blame Republicans for having a hand in it, go ahead—I've as much as given them credit along with FDR—but he made it worse, and somehow got credit for fixing what didn't get fixed until after he was gone (and wasn't fixed by any miracle-work by government.)

Um, which party was in power from 1921 to 1933? Adam 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why leave out 1933 to 1948? I'm more than happy to give both parties credit for having their heads firmly planted in unreality land (I have no emotional investment in either party.) You seem to be one who wants to make it a polemic issue.

the reason the von Mises crowd gets little attention is they pay little attention. They did not in 1933 have a plan, they do not in 2006 have a plan. So why should anyone pay attention to them then or now? Rjensen 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason the "von Mises crowd" gets little attention is they aren't trying to hijack the country like your polemic friends and enemies. They have a crystal clear plan—stop screwing with the economy—at the macro- and micro-economic level.

The whole point of laissez-faire capitalism is that there should be no plan. A "plan" is what causes the economic problems. So, of course laissez-faire advocates have no plan. The point is that government cannot plan the economy better than the economy can plan itself. Market systems self-organize --organization and efficiency emerges unguided by an central planning authority. Government intervention causes inefficiencies in the market system which are then used as justification for further interventions to fix the inefficiencies that the intervention caused. The best "plan" is not to plan in the first place. RJII 02:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, the American people are stupid and just elected him to four terms for grinns and giggles. Please, don't insult the "Greatest Generation." (I moved this comment, which had been added without attribution, inside the previous contributor's comment.) 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they did it because hawking the future benefited them, just like misguided people do today. Oddly enough, Roosevelt was initially against programs which hawked the future.01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What do the "American people" know about economics? "Take from the rich and give to the poor" is pretty much the extent of knowledge of economic theory for the masses. RJII 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FDR had the best record of any 1st term

The problem is that when there is a crisis it needs a solution, no matter what caused it. Roosevelt had the BEST record of any president in his first term in: GNP growth and in fall in unemployment. With "no plan" the banks would never reopen--the first one to open would be flooded with cash withdrawals and have to close in hours. Wheere would that leave us? Rjensen 02:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So you think that the entire banking system would have just collapsed and died? That's unrealistic. And, the first term is not really relevant, because the effects of economic actions typically take a few years to arrive. We saw the Roosevelt Recession in 1938 --unemployment increased to 16.5% and GNP decreased. That was the delayed result of central planning and excessive taxation. By 1940 there was still 13.5% unemployment. There is no reason for a depression to last 10 years. It's ridiculous. A 10 year depression has one cause: government intervention in what would otherwise be a free self-directed market. RJII 02:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

well FDR's 3rd term was even better than the first economically! If you like numbers--FDR had the BEST term in American history, counting 1933-45. Unemployment went from 25% to 2%--how much better do you want? GNP grew at a compound rate of 8% a year no president comes close. (It's a little better than China in recent years. Rjensen 02:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Eventually, recoveries happen. I see no reason to think that Roosevelt caused a recovery. How, do you know such a recovery wouldn't have occured much sooner if a laissez-faire president were elected that reduced taxes and regulations? I think that's much more likely. RJII 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

counterfactual history is not Wiki's realm. Fact is FDR's had the BEST economic record of any president, and the GNP growth in his 12 years exceeds China in last 12 years. Maybe China will turn out to outperform FDR, but it so far has not. So Wiki can say that FDR had the best economic performance in American history (no one is close) and probably the best in world history, but there are some critics who say that totally different policies might have done even better. Rjensen 03:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Counterfactual history"...that's cute. GNP and unemployment are only partial pictures of a healthy economy. I can give you 100% employment tomorrow by enslaving everyone...and the GDP will temporarily rise, too. It's BS. You can't make money by throwing it at government. That's how you waste money, and that's what happened, and why the Great Depression lasted through WW II.

What's so funny about "progressives" is they think they're solving things when they're just screwing things up.

Thank you for proving my point

The "talk" page began with a "what's wrong with Wikipedia" screed. The "authors" of this article typify what's wrong with Wikipedia. It cannot hope to be unbiased when authoritarians go running around creating tight edits of their version of "the truth" because they're afraid of opposing opinions. BTW, I have no "ownership" issues here, as I have neither written a word of the article nor edited a word. I am also neither Republican nor Democrat. I'm calling the disgusting politics I'm seeing. (signed after the fact) Mark 206.124.31.221 04:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Objective readers will notice, if they read the article, and the talk page for the article, that the current version of the article could not possibly reflect neutral point of view. This is because two or three authors are repeatedly removing comments added to the article (no edits have been made by this contributor) by those who wish to show alternative points of view to those who would take every opportunity to overstate the flowery bouquet that they believe accompanied the FDR administration. Repeated attempts to balance the article have been obliterated, and a "fan-boy" attitude remains on the talk page for all to see. (signed after the fact) Mark 206.124.31.221 04:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. Adam 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also make the point that this is a biographical article about FDR, and not an article about the Depression or the New Deal. It should not be used as a battlefield for conflicting schools of economic thought. I haven't read right through this article for a while, but when I do I will remove any polemical, unsourced or unnecessarily detailed material. Adam 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. Relevant claims have been made to the effect that alternative points of view have been censored. No one "owns" the article. I will remind you that I have not written or edited a word of the article. I am responding out of sympathy for people who are being censored. (signed) Mark 206.124.31.221 04:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Example:

"There was little violence, but most observers considered it remarkable that such an obvious breakdown of the capitalist system had not led to a rapid growth of fascism (as happened in Nazi Germany)."

This is not NPOV. I'll happily accept being in the minority, though I'd dare to say that the majority would not consider it an "obvious breakdown of the capitalist system."

I'm refraining from continuing in detail because, frankly, others have already pointed at bias, and I've already invested far too much time in this. The above is simply an example. Mark 206.124.31.221 04:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's very POV. What is "the capitalist system"? It certainly wasn't a laisser-faire system as capitalism is commonly defined today ("an economic system characterized by private or corporation ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly in a free market. -Merriam Webster) What broke down was investor confidence, as a result of too much state intervention in the economy. Investors like free markets. RJII 04:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The sentence refered to most observers at the time thought, not what you think. In the 1930s most political debate rotated around the question of whether capitalism or socialism was the superior political/economic system. The Depression was seen at the time as a breakdown in the world capitalist system, which had promised everyone (particularly in the US) prosperity and freedom. In Europe masses of people turned to fascism or communism as alternatives to capitalism. What seemed remarkable at the time was that the American electorate, in the depths of the Depression, rejected these alternatives and elected FDR. Adam 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the Supreme Court didn't find the NRA and AAA as unconstitutional, then economic fascism is exactly what we would have. (see When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America) Because, that's obviously what FDR had planned. Sure, there were many that saw it as a "breakdown in the capitalist system" but there were also many others who saw it as due to mercantilism, high taxes, and the Fed. RJII 04:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A) Then the phrasing is sloppy and does not correctly imply that the "obvious" was their POV. B) You better have references—and I don't mean two or three—if you're going to toss around "most observers." They also better not all be from the "same school" or they can't be "most." I'll guarantee you that Ludwig von Mises was not among them—nor, I'll bet—was he in the minority on that aspect of the issue. Mark 206.124.31.221 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, last point:

"As stated, I will go on deleting RJII's edits until he/she stops adding opinionated, trivial and unnecessary material to this article. (Why does this article attract so many cranks?) Adam 08:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"

Your opinion is not necessarily so unbiased as that of the woman holding the scale of justice. The belief that you have the truth and others are opinionated is very dangerous. Mark 206.124.31.221 05:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see this article is being taken over by cranks (again). Crank edits will be ruthlessly reverted. Adam 05:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, <omitted>. I haven't edited a single word, so stash your paranoia. I'm just showing you for what you are.

SIEG HEIL! 206.124.31.221 05:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

QED. Adam 05:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're referring to yourself, you're misusing it. You proved my point. 206.124.31.221 06:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

While I am generally reluctant to interfere in discussions of this nature, I would like to point our anonymous contributor toward our articles on Godwin's Law and reductio ad Hitlerum. We do at least try to rise above normal internet debating standards around here. ～J.K. 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I refer the readers to the article on censorship, the use of which provoked the comment. 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact related to NPOV, the NPOV tag was arbitrarily removed, without comment. I replaced it. 04:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)