This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Under the section "Presidency, 1933-1945," the map purporting to show FDR's world travels during his time in office is very misguided and misleading. It does not, in fact, show FDR's trips; it shows instead the countries that he visited a small part of, but not his itineraries. He was certainly never in Corsica, Siberia, Patagonia, Northern Ireland, or the Yukon as president (and I very much doubt at any other time in his life, as well). It also omits his well-known visit to Morocco to confer with Churchill in 1943. (For that matter, the article itself does not even mention the Casablanca Conference).
Thus, the map gives a reader no useful visual information. It should be deleted, or else remade with dots to show the specific localities visited, not entire countries. Textorus ( talk) 21:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following to moderate the amount of detail on his ancestry:
His paternal grandmother, Mary Rebecca Aspinwall, was a first cousin of Elizabeth Monroe, wife of the fifth U.S. President, James Monroe. His maternal grandfather Warren Delano II – a descendant of Mayflower passengers Richard Warren, Isaac Allerton, Degory Priest, and Francis Cooke – during a period of twelve years in China made more than a million dollars in the tea trade in Macau, Canton, and Hong Kong; but upon returning to the United States, he lost it all in the Panic of 1857. In 1860, he returned to China and made a fortune in the notorious but highly profitable opium trade [1] supplying opium-based medication to the U. S. War Department during the American Civil War, although not exclusively. [2] Carmarg4 ( talk) 18:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Also removed the following to moderate detail:
They were both descended from Claes Martensz van Rosenvelt (Roosevelt), who arrived in New Amsterdam ( Manhattan) from the Netherlands in the 1640s. Rosenvelt's (Roosevelt) two grandsons, Johannes and Jacobus, began the Long Island and Hudson River branches of the Roosevelt family, respectively. Eleanor and Theodore Roosevelt were descended from the Johannes branch, while FDR came from the Jacobus branch. [3] Carmarg4 ( talk) 19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Also removed the following details re children's lives - links are provided in the article:
The five surviving Roosevelt children led tumultuous lives overshadowed by their famous parents. They had a total of nineteen marriages, fifteen divorces, and twenty-nine children. All four sons were officers in World War II and were decorated for bravery. Two of them were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives—FDR, Jr. served three terms representing the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and James served six terms representing the 26th district in California—but none was elected to higher office despite several attempts. [4] [5] [6] [7] Carmarg4 ( talk) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
following to be re-inserted at better location in article; Roosevelt later became the only U.S. president to design a golf course when he built nine holes on the complex he bought in Warm Springs, Georgia. The course featured many paths and roads to allow disabled people easy access. [8] Carmarg4 ( talk) 22:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please note that in this passage: "By this time he had become more consistently progressive, in support of labor and social welfare programs for women and children; cousin Teddy was of some influence on these issues.[40] Roosevelt, again in opposition to Tammany Hall, supported Woodrow Wilson's successful bid in the 1812 presidential election, and thereby earned a informal designation as an original Wilson man.[41] This opened the door for opportunities in the Wilson administration. Roosevelt resigned from the New York State Senate on March 17, 1913, to accept his appointment as Assistant U.S. Secretary of the Navy.[42]"
where it says 'Wilson's successful bid in the 1812 presidential election'
it should say:'Wilson's successful bid in the 1912 presidential election'
Lwdgrfx ( talk) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following statement and cite because I cannot verify the statement or the reliability of the source: "He had high hopes for the [United Nations] conference, and was even considering resigning from the presidency to become the first Secretary General of the United Nations." [9] Carmarg4 ( talk) 18:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI. I am about half way through. Carmarg4 ( talk) 12:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following references - all listed under a single footnote - about various rankings of the presidents. I think the number is excessive (the link in the article has 14 rankings itself). If these are to be retained, I think they should be listed under references and not within a footnote:
Thomas A. Bailey, Presidential Greatness (1966), a non quantitative appraisal by leading historian;
Degregorio, William A. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. 4th ed. New York: Avenel, 1993. Contains the results of the 1962 and 1982 surveys;
Charles and Richard Faber The American Presidents Ranked by Performance (2000);
Murray, Robert K. and Tim H. Blessing. Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, from Washington Through Ronald Reagan (1994);
Pfiffner, James P., "Ranking the Presidents: Continuity and Volatility" White House Studies, Vol. 3, 2003 pp 23+;
Ridings, William J., Jr. and Stuart B. McIver. Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent (1997).
ISBN
0-8065-1799-9.;
Schlesinger, Jr. Arthur M. "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton," Political Science Quarterly (1997) 112:179–90;
Skidmore, Max J. Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review (2004);
Taranto, James and Leonard Leo, eds. Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House (2004).
ISBN
0-7432-5433-3, for Federalist Society surveys.;
Vedder, Richard and Gallaway, Lowell, "Rating Presidential Performance" in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom ed. John V. Denson, Mises Institute, 2001, for libertarian views.
Whew! Carmarg4 ( talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a reference (Schweikart and Allen) which I cited in the 2d New deal section, representing the opposing view as to the 2 New Deal scenario. I have reinstated the reference out of necessity to provide a source for the addition I made to the text. Carmarg4 ( talk) 23:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The article states that the "first 100 days" began on March 4, 1933, the date on which Roosevelt took office. That is not correct. The "100 days" refers to the length of the special session of Congress that Roosevelt called when he took office. The session convened on March 9, 1933, and adjourned on June 16, 1933. During that session, most of the initial New Deal legislation was passed.
In reality, the "100 days" was a fluke of history, and in light of the adoption of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution, cannot occur again. When Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, Congress was not in session. Under then-effective constitutional provisions, its next regular session would not begin until January 3, 1934. Believing that immediate action was required, and that delay would be prejudicial, Roosevelt called a special session of Congress.
Today, when the President takes office on January 20, the Congress is already in session (the usual starting date being on or about January 3, pursuant to the 20th Amendment). Thus, there is no opportunity or need for the President to convene a special session of Congress, or to create the sense of drama and expectancy that was generated by Roosevelt's proclamation regarding a special session.
In light of the unique circumstances surrounding the "first 100 days" in Roosevelt's time, and the now-effective provisions of the Constitution, judging his successors by their accomplishments, or lack thereof, in the first 100 days of their term of office is unrealistic and unfair. John Paul Parks ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This issue has been the subject of lengthy discussion at Lincoln. The consensus has been reached there that stamps are not of sufficient significance and do not inform the reader to the degree appropriate for inclusion. Space limitations need to be considered here as well. I have deleted the image inserted here, and a link to the stamps is provided. User Gwillhickers disagrees. Please comment. Carmarg4 ( talk) 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the family name, early life and education section, as it belongs elsewhere for context: Roosevelt was an avid stamp collector, and the media coverage of his collecting activities helped to popularize it as a hobby. During his tenure Roosevelt approved personally all the new US stamp designs, a total of 200 stamps, some of which were designed from his personal sketches.William H. Young, Nancy K. Young (2007). The Great Depression in America: A Cultural Encyclopedia (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 520–521. ISBN 0313335206.. Carmarg4 ( talk) 19:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a link provided to the Roosevelt family article (at the beginning of FDR's Personal life section); that article includes a section on the family coat of arms without the image located here. I think the coat of arms belongs in the family article rather than in the FDR article. Thoughts? Carmarg4 ( talk) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I will wait another day or so and If there is no objection I'll transfer the coat of arms to the family article. Carmarg4 ( talk) 11:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the image to the right - there is no adequate space in the section to which it relates. Carmarg4 ( talk) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There are currently 2 audio files in the media section, but 3 others posted in the body of the article. For consistency, I would suggest that all of the audio files be consolidated into the media section. Thoughts? Carmarg4 ( talk) 18:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The recommendation has been made above to eliminate the media section and allow readers to rely in the usual manner on the commons for extra images and audio files. Thoughts? Carmarg4 ( talk) 13:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
In the Economic environment section, the text of the article covers in detail all the numbers - for the Gross National Product, the deficit spending and unemployment. There are two graphs and a table in the section showing the same data. These charts take up alot of space and do not add any information to the article. Are they needed? Carmarg4 ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Cite should not be there: Concerning FDR's paralytic illness, the article says "this diagnosis was later questioned" and cites Lomazow "The Untold Neurological Disease of Franklin Delano Roosevelt". However, the Lomazow article does not question the cause of FDR's paralytic illness. "The Untold Neurological Disease" is something else, not related to the cause of FDR's paralysis. So the Lomazow citation, which has been in place for about a year, is wrong here. DoctorJoeE introduced this error. Could a regular editor (I don't have an account) look at the text, and change back to the way it was before DoctorJoeE wreaked it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=381994622 (August 2010)
Cite got messed up: I also noticed the Goldman citation got messed up, courtesy of Hoppyh. The mangled cite lists "Random House" as publisher, incorrectly capitalizes article title, and deletes actual journal citation. Could a regular editor look at the citation and restore to previous correct version before Hoppyh damaged it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=427306152 (May 2011) Thanks. 174.21.125.25 ( talk) 22:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
We should put some thing in here stating that he is the descendant of Egbert of Wessex and many more. I will put a link showing his royal family tree. Click on "family tree" to see link. It’s just a suggestion but I think it’s important. -- Kenlukus ( talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlukus ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In a speech in 1942 Hitler called him "Half Jewsih" (can be seen and heard on Youtube and recorded in a Polish resistance paper reaching the English military and its translation copied to all high ranking officers and officials at the time. Roosevelt being a Jew is repeated as a fact in antisemitic websites like JewWatch.com. It was totally refuted by various researchers. I can show the details one by one, but basically, the fact is that family researchers know exactly who his ancestors are quite far back into time. And they were not Jewish.
An old man now living in my town claims that his father was a young official or the Jewish Aid Committee during WWII, had met and spoke with Roosvelt and that Roosevelt saved countless Jews during WWII. On the other hand Rabbi Isaac Herzog traveled from (then 'Palestine') Israel, to the US during the war (and back!). In his biography "Singled out in his Generation" the author tells of the rabbi's meeting with Roosevelt, who kept on smiling, without replying, although the rabbi spoke about the blood of the Jewish people. The author tells about the rabbi's hair, that changed from black and gray to white, when coming out of the meeting.
The claim about the Saint Lewis is that they had official permission to land in the US but received a specific notification from Roosevelt himself, not to allow them into New York. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This message is to inform editors interested in the topic of this article that there are new documents from the US National Archives related to the topic now available on Commons. The Commons category " Franklin D. Roosevelt Library Public Domain Photographs, compiled 1882 - 1962" currently contains 1992 files. Please browse the category for images which could be used in this or related articles. These files represent the best quality images of the documents that have been made, and if they duplicate any images already being used, please update the article with the higher-resolution images from the National Archives.
These were uploaded as a result of a cooperation between the National Archives and Wikimedia. Please visit our project page at WP:NARA to learn how help with our collaboration with the National Archives. In addition, any textual documents in the series may be transcribed on Wikisource; please see WS:NARA to get involved in transcribing documents. Dominic· t 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't fix the following myself, but all I can do now and for the foreseeable future is report it and ask for help:
Thanks for your help. I wish I didn't have to keep on posting help requests on various talk pages, but chronic illness really limits my ability to even do that sometimes, so... Thanks! -- Geekdiva ( talk) 05:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Concerning FDR's paralytic illness, the article says "this diagnosis was later questioned" and cites Lomazow "The Untold Neurological Disease of Franklin Delano Roosevelt". However, the Lomazow article does not question the cause of FDR's paralytic illness. "The Untold Neurological Disease" is something else, not related to the cause of FDR's paralysis. So the Lomazow citation is 100% wrong here. Could an editor change back to the correct way it was before: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=381994622 Thanks
In the opening paragraph, Roosevelt is quoted describing himself and his cabinet as "left of centre". Using the British spelling may be a faithful reproduction of the sources (though this seems unlikely, as both authors are American). However, in American English, the spelling "center" had overtaken "centre" by the beginning of the 20th Century. (See this Ngram search, as well as this more direct search.) Normally, I wouldn't take exception to a non-American editor using non-American spelling in a wiki article, but it seems unjust to put regionalist misorderings of letters into the mouth of a great American president.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Theodore was FDR's uncle, not fifth cousin, as is incorrectly stated. It needs to be changed to state "uncle". Dkeever2 ( talk)
Teddy was FDR's uncle, not fifth cousin, as is stated. It needs to be stated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkeever2 ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This article describes an Executive Order as raising the limit to 3.2%-- the article on Prohibition says: "As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, especially in the big cities, "Repeal" was eagerly anticipated. On March 23, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead Act known as the Cullen-Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of "3.2 beer" (3.2% alcohol by weight, approximately 4% alcohol by volume) and light wines. The original Volstead Act had defined "intoxicating beverage" as one with greater than 0.5% alcohol.[7] Upon signing the amendment, Roosevelt made his famous remark; "I think this would be a good time for a beer."[37] The Cullen-Harrison Act became law on April 7, 1933, and on April 8, 1933, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. sent a team of Clydesdale horses to deliver a case of Budweiser to the White House. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed on December 5, 1933 with ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. Despite the efforts of Heber J. Grant and the LDS Church, a Utah convention helped ratify the 21st Amendment.[38] While Utah can be considered the deciding 36th state to ratify the Amendment and make it law, the day Utah approved the Amendment, both Pennsylvania and Ohio approved it as well." Someone please reconcile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.69.127 ( talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an incorrect name listed under "The Roosevelt Cabinet". Roosevelt's second Secretary of the Navy was not Edwin Denby, but instead Charles Edison. Edwin Denby was Secretary of the Navy, but during the presidencies of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. I request that this factual error be fixed as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.1.126 ( talk) 01:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe expanding the lede section on WWII as FDR the military leader would help. Remember, he intiated the creation of the Atom bomb. He was a good administrator and was an active in making decisions concerning overall strategy of the War. The mention of the imprisonment of Japanese needs to be stated in the lede section. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this account In the section on FDR's view on race policy would be better balancdif it linked to the wiki entry on the 1943 Casablanca Conference and FDR's astonishing remarks re Morocco sited there; and picked up with approval by the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.101.192 ( talk) 23:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
he had polio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmyjojo ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we know. And your point is......?-- Green4liberty ( talk) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the real point: How do you "know"? What's the evidence for your certainty? And "everyone says so" is not evidence. 71.212.52.164 ( talk) 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please link the Fala reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fala_(dog)
173.79.104.149 ( talk) 18:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I know this may seem like a daunting task, but I recommend a separate Roosevelt Presidential article for the following reasons:
I understand that the New Deal covers most of FDR as President. There was a series of Neutrality Acts, The Gold Reserve Act, Farm Mortgage Refinancing Act; Tydings-McDuffy Act that freed the Philippines in ten years; Cuba was released from Platt Amendment by treaty. A Presidency article might put Roosevelt's lengthly Presidency into historical perspective. However, the articles written adequately cover FDR's Presidency. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
i need a report on franklin roosevelt and how he was a part in world war 2. i need a who what where why when, can you help me i need a paragraph for each one. Please helpp mee(: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.60.43 ( talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page for Franklin D Roosevelt has a section on the internment of Japanese during World War II, it states that Roosevelt did not imprison Japanese that were US citizens, this is completely false. The section conflicts with your page on Japanese American internment, which states that 110,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese were interned. The beloved FDR imprisoned US citizens in desolate desserts, multiple families sharing tiny shacks, losing most of their belongings and property. This was a horribly shameful act by the government and the president and I believe all Americans should know about it. Mnishi81 ( talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The facts about the internment camps should be referenced, in my opinion, to the government documents released and the apologies made last year about Japanese Americans who were interned. If I remember correctly didn't someone in the Obama administration (perhaps the president himself) say "Japanese Americans"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.222 ( talk) 20:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I know Herbert Hoover died in 1964, but his book "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" was just printed in November 2011. Reportedly, he was about to publish the book when he died. His heirs decided not to publish it, maybe because it was too controversial. I don't know. I'm bringing this book to the attention of the editors of this wiki article in case you were not already aware of it. Much new historical material in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.114.177 ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Any objections to using John Spritzler as source: The People As Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II? Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Any objections to William D. Pederson A Companion to Franklin D. Roosevelt as source? Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
PIGS CAN FLY!The article says that President Roosevelt attempted to enact a 100% income tax on all income over $25,000 which was later rescinded by congress. I do not have access to the book that is cited for this fact, but the title does sound a little fishy, and when I go over a list of executive orders issued in 1941 (which is pretty daunting), I cannot find anything referencing this. Could someone who is more acquainted with the source look into it and possibly correct this? Here's the URL for the National Archives' list of executive orders from 1941, in case you find something: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1941.html Franzose ( talk) 05:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any objection to having a Civil Rights segment in the Presidential section? Throughout all of his Presidency not one Civil Rights legislation was passed, yet, he was able to capture the African American vote due primarily to his wife and his Secretary of Interior Harold L. Ickes efforts to help African Americans. Apparently Roosevelt wanted his new deal legistlation to pass Congress so he did not push for any federal civil rights legislation. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion did not use the word appease. Taking leading progressive position in the U.S. military from 1941 to 1945 on civil rights is only part of Roosevelts presidency. WWII started during his third term in office. In Roosevelts 1931 initial election blacks voted of Herbert Hoover. Also during the initial beginings of the New Deal black leaders protested discrimination in New Deal practices. President Roosevelt was the first President to speak out against the violation of Jewish civil rights in Nazi controlled Europe. If Roosevelt thought Civil Rights was worth mentioning concerning the Jews, maybe Civil Rights is worth mentioning in the article. Why such resistance? Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason why the entire Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Race_and_civil_rights section can't be moved to his tenure as president unless he had an effect on it while he was not president?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 03:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I renamed the section to Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Civil_rights. I don't know why it was diff from all the others. The link to the main article Franklin D. Roosevelt's record on civil rights looks like it could use a merge/delete/trim/POV slap as well.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 04:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is wrong:
As far as I can tell, the inauguration was 4 March, FDR declared the bank holiday 5 March, and the Emergency Banking Act was passed 9 March. The Act retroactively legalized the holiday. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to come off as a tribute to FDR. Their is growing critique of his policies in modern times and lets not even forget that he was opposed by congress on a lot of issues. The long term effects of his presidency and his role in the Great Depression need to be looked at it in a more critical view. Countless sources available to do this and I hate it when an article on Clinton or Bush or Obama or Carter offer up criticism and critique of their policies but FDR gets painted as a infallible demigod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.42.140 ( talk) 11:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
"When Roosevelt was inaugurated March 4, 1933 (32 days after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany), the U.S. was at the nadir of the worst depression in its history. A quarter of the workforce was unemployed."
That Hitler was appointed Chancellor 32 days earlier is indeed a fact. But why do we care? Are there critical similarities between Hitler and FDR that need to be noted over both their lives? If it's because they are adversaries in the future, perhaps we should mention that Tojo was promoted to Major General plus or minus "x" number of days from this mark in 1933.
It's an interesting fact. It doesn't add to our understanding of FDR. The fact that Hitler was Chancellor at this point in time has no historical impact on FDR's decisions in 1933. It likely has no impact for his whole first term.
For lack of a better term, the Hitler information is, trivia. I suggest it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.144.31 ( talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The map of places that FDR visited during his presidency has an error. The Crimean Peninsula is mistakenly left uncolored (ironically this was the only part of the USSR that FDR actually visited). It should match the rest of the USSR. 68.37.161.91 ( talk) 08:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the introduction begins with this statement: "Roosevelt dominated the American political scene, not only during the twelve years of his presidency, but for decades afterward." This statement makes no sense considering the fact that Roosevelt did not live for decades after his presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.128.167 ( talk) 00:56, 11 May 2012
This reference in the early life section caused me confusion i.e. conflating with the following sentence espousing liberal, christian values, I thought it meant 90% of the students were on welfare - which is of course, quite the opposite. There is a wikipedia article on Social Register that could be linked and might be useful for non-Americans. I would do it myself but can't find my log in details! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.13.28 ( talk) 10:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This article was de-listed as a Featured Article two years ago, mostly due to lack of citations. I'd like to try to add these citations in the coming days and see if we can get this back up to at least a Good Article. (I'm doing similar work at Eleanor Roosevelt, if anyone's interested in pitching in there, too.) I'll also correct any other issues I see as I go, noting anything potentially controversial here. Any help would be welcome! Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness which may be of concern to editors here, too. It regards the degree to which that article should be based on a 2003 journal article stating that FDR may have had Guillain Barre syndrome. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The flat statement that "However, his age at onset (39 years) and the majority of symptoms of his illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome" is highly contentious. This theory has been advanced, but has not received wide acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 ( talk) 00:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As long as we are addressing the problem of minority viewpoints, and how much weight to give them in the article, we should look at the last paragraph of the "Second New Deal" section, which begins as a dissenting view of the "two New Deals" concept and veers off into non-sequitors. One cited source, a book called A Patriot's History of the United States, is a right-wing diatribe full of historical inaccuracies, omissions, and jingoistic bias that hardly qualifies as "reliable". The other, the Burns biography, is legitimate, but the cited quote is taken well out of context; if memory serves, Burns was saying that while it might *appear* that FDR was "fighting blindly", he was actually following his own philosophy of trying something, and if it didn't work, admitting it frankly and trying something else. I have no problem, obviously, with including minority opinions (since I'm fighting for inclusion of the Guillain-Barre thing), but they should be accurate. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that was my point. I'm also in complete agreement that conservative viewpoints are needed; but the Schweikart & Allen book was written solely as a rebuttal to Howard Zinn's equally slanted and distorted People's History of the United States, and neither qualifies as a "sober analysis" IMHO. Plenty of valid dissenting analyses of the New Deal and other FDR policies have been published by well-regarded academic historians who do not work for Fox News or MSNBC, and would be much more appropriate in this article. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As long as I know the eyes of other Roosevelt-interested editors are on this page, I thought I'd mention that I just expanded Marguerite LeHand with hopes of getting it promoted to Good Article status. If anyone would like to take a look, other eyes/sources/opinions would be welcome. I'm primarily relying so far on the histories available from my local library: Cook, Rowley, Goodwin, and Smith. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully this won't be particularly controversial, but I removed two-word reference to FDR's being a cheerleader at Harvard that I couldn't immediately find any reliable sources for via Google Books or in the books I have at home; I suspect this is probably true, but seems to veer into the trivial if it's not even appearing in 800-1000 page biographies of the man. It looks as though the main source for this is either Harvard alumni stuff or popular books on cheerleading that include lists of US Presidents who were once cheerleaders (which, by the way, would be a great Wikipedia list, though certain to be deleted).
I'm continuing to source things as I go. I may occasionally make tweaks based on the language/claims of specific sources, but I'll try to be explicit here about any deletions that I make. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of what is in the lede should go into the main body of the article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
One thing that's striking as I go through this article line-by-line is how heavily it relies on Burns' 1956 and 1970 biographies. It's not just for simple facts, but for his judgments and comments as well. I think this one may need a bigger overhaul to get to Good Article status than I'd originally hoped. I realize nobody's going to be able to tackle something that large right away, but I thought I'd leave a note here on the concern for future editing. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm reading the Coker book now -- just started, but it appears to be an excellent source. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This may be the wrong place to discuss this, but why doesn't FDR have a separate Presidency article? He of all presidents certainly deserves one!
Anyone up for the job? -- Mhoppmann ( talk) 21:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Why have you included "and Affairs" in the "Marriage" section of this bio ? This is not only slanderous but unsourced nonsense and totally based on fantasy. It is politically motivated , violates "do no harm" and does credibility damage to wikipedia. 172.248.218.48 ( talk) 16:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very tactful l to include the "affairs" in "Marriage and affairs", I'm not saying you shouldn't mention the affairs, just be decent and leave it out of the headline. I mean for goodness sake, even Bill Clinton has a "public image" headline, at the very least change it to something more npov, thanks.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a photo of FDR's 1928 Gubernatorial Campaign Banner (I won the banner)which I am happy to make available for you to add to the FDR web site. It is a one of a kind and shows FDR as a man of vigor and intelligence. If you would like the picture, please email me at [redacted] Thank you.
Tony Stepanski
TonyStepanski ( talk) 14:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One of the lines in the summary reads "...worked closely with English Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet...". This should read "British Prime Minister" which more accurately reflects the full title "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" held by Churchill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom). 2.28.186.144 ( talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Done Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 23:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
5thcousins
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Under the section "Presidency, 1933-1945," the map purporting to show FDR's world travels during his time in office is very misguided and misleading. It does not, in fact, show FDR's trips; it shows instead the countries that he visited a small part of, but not his itineraries. He was certainly never in Corsica, Siberia, Patagonia, Northern Ireland, or the Yukon as president (and I very much doubt at any other time in his life, as well). It also omits his well-known visit to Morocco to confer with Churchill in 1943. (For that matter, the article itself does not even mention the Casablanca Conference).
Thus, the map gives a reader no useful visual information. It should be deleted, or else remade with dots to show the specific localities visited, not entire countries. Textorus ( talk) 21:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following to moderate the amount of detail on his ancestry:
His paternal grandmother, Mary Rebecca Aspinwall, was a first cousin of Elizabeth Monroe, wife of the fifth U.S. President, James Monroe. His maternal grandfather Warren Delano II – a descendant of Mayflower passengers Richard Warren, Isaac Allerton, Degory Priest, and Francis Cooke – during a period of twelve years in China made more than a million dollars in the tea trade in Macau, Canton, and Hong Kong; but upon returning to the United States, he lost it all in the Panic of 1857. In 1860, he returned to China and made a fortune in the notorious but highly profitable opium trade [1] supplying opium-based medication to the U. S. War Department during the American Civil War, although not exclusively. [2] Carmarg4 ( talk) 18:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Also removed the following to moderate detail:
They were both descended from Claes Martensz van Rosenvelt (Roosevelt), who arrived in New Amsterdam ( Manhattan) from the Netherlands in the 1640s. Rosenvelt's (Roosevelt) two grandsons, Johannes and Jacobus, began the Long Island and Hudson River branches of the Roosevelt family, respectively. Eleanor and Theodore Roosevelt were descended from the Johannes branch, while FDR came from the Jacobus branch. [3] Carmarg4 ( talk) 19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Also removed the following details re children's lives - links are provided in the article:
The five surviving Roosevelt children led tumultuous lives overshadowed by their famous parents. They had a total of nineteen marriages, fifteen divorces, and twenty-nine children. All four sons were officers in World War II and were decorated for bravery. Two of them were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives—FDR, Jr. served three terms representing the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and James served six terms representing the 26th district in California—but none was elected to higher office despite several attempts. [4] [5] [6] [7] Carmarg4 ( talk) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
following to be re-inserted at better location in article; Roosevelt later became the only U.S. president to design a golf course when he built nine holes on the complex he bought in Warm Springs, Georgia. The course featured many paths and roads to allow disabled people easy access. [8] Carmarg4 ( talk) 22:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please note that in this passage: "By this time he had become more consistently progressive, in support of labor and social welfare programs for women and children; cousin Teddy was of some influence on these issues.[40] Roosevelt, again in opposition to Tammany Hall, supported Woodrow Wilson's successful bid in the 1812 presidential election, and thereby earned a informal designation as an original Wilson man.[41] This opened the door for opportunities in the Wilson administration. Roosevelt resigned from the New York State Senate on March 17, 1913, to accept his appointment as Assistant U.S. Secretary of the Navy.[42]"
where it says 'Wilson's successful bid in the 1812 presidential election'
it should say:'Wilson's successful bid in the 1912 presidential election'
Lwdgrfx ( talk) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following statement and cite because I cannot verify the statement or the reliability of the source: "He had high hopes for the [United Nations] conference, and was even considering resigning from the presidency to become the first Secretary General of the United Nations." [9] Carmarg4 ( talk) 18:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI. I am about half way through. Carmarg4 ( talk) 12:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following references - all listed under a single footnote - about various rankings of the presidents. I think the number is excessive (the link in the article has 14 rankings itself). If these are to be retained, I think they should be listed under references and not within a footnote:
Thomas A. Bailey, Presidential Greatness (1966), a non quantitative appraisal by leading historian;
Degregorio, William A. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. 4th ed. New York: Avenel, 1993. Contains the results of the 1962 and 1982 surveys;
Charles and Richard Faber The American Presidents Ranked by Performance (2000);
Murray, Robert K. and Tim H. Blessing. Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, from Washington Through Ronald Reagan (1994);
Pfiffner, James P., "Ranking the Presidents: Continuity and Volatility" White House Studies, Vol. 3, 2003 pp 23+;
Ridings, William J., Jr. and Stuart B. McIver. Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent (1997).
ISBN
0-8065-1799-9.;
Schlesinger, Jr. Arthur M. "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton," Political Science Quarterly (1997) 112:179–90;
Skidmore, Max J. Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review (2004);
Taranto, James and Leonard Leo, eds. Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House (2004).
ISBN
0-7432-5433-3, for Federalist Society surveys.;
Vedder, Richard and Gallaway, Lowell, "Rating Presidential Performance" in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom ed. John V. Denson, Mises Institute, 2001, for libertarian views.
Whew! Carmarg4 ( talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a reference (Schweikart and Allen) which I cited in the 2d New deal section, representing the opposing view as to the 2 New Deal scenario. I have reinstated the reference out of necessity to provide a source for the addition I made to the text. Carmarg4 ( talk) 23:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The article states that the "first 100 days" began on March 4, 1933, the date on which Roosevelt took office. That is not correct. The "100 days" refers to the length of the special session of Congress that Roosevelt called when he took office. The session convened on March 9, 1933, and adjourned on June 16, 1933. During that session, most of the initial New Deal legislation was passed.
In reality, the "100 days" was a fluke of history, and in light of the adoption of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution, cannot occur again. When Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, Congress was not in session. Under then-effective constitutional provisions, its next regular session would not begin until January 3, 1934. Believing that immediate action was required, and that delay would be prejudicial, Roosevelt called a special session of Congress.
Today, when the President takes office on January 20, the Congress is already in session (the usual starting date being on or about January 3, pursuant to the 20th Amendment). Thus, there is no opportunity or need for the President to convene a special session of Congress, or to create the sense of drama and expectancy that was generated by Roosevelt's proclamation regarding a special session.
In light of the unique circumstances surrounding the "first 100 days" in Roosevelt's time, and the now-effective provisions of the Constitution, judging his successors by their accomplishments, or lack thereof, in the first 100 days of their term of office is unrealistic and unfair. John Paul Parks ( talk) 14:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This issue has been the subject of lengthy discussion at Lincoln. The consensus has been reached there that stamps are not of sufficient significance and do not inform the reader to the degree appropriate for inclusion. Space limitations need to be considered here as well. I have deleted the image inserted here, and a link to the stamps is provided. User Gwillhickers disagrees. Please comment. Carmarg4 ( talk) 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the family name, early life and education section, as it belongs elsewhere for context: Roosevelt was an avid stamp collector, and the media coverage of his collecting activities helped to popularize it as a hobby. During his tenure Roosevelt approved personally all the new US stamp designs, a total of 200 stamps, some of which were designed from his personal sketches.William H. Young, Nancy K. Young (2007). The Great Depression in America: A Cultural Encyclopedia (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 520–521. ISBN 0313335206.. Carmarg4 ( talk) 19:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a link provided to the Roosevelt family article (at the beginning of FDR's Personal life section); that article includes a section on the family coat of arms without the image located here. I think the coat of arms belongs in the family article rather than in the FDR article. Thoughts? Carmarg4 ( talk) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I will wait another day or so and If there is no objection I'll transfer the coat of arms to the family article. Carmarg4 ( talk) 11:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the image to the right - there is no adequate space in the section to which it relates. Carmarg4 ( talk) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
There are currently 2 audio files in the media section, but 3 others posted in the body of the article. For consistency, I would suggest that all of the audio files be consolidated into the media section. Thoughts? Carmarg4 ( talk) 18:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The recommendation has been made above to eliminate the media section and allow readers to rely in the usual manner on the commons for extra images and audio files. Thoughts? Carmarg4 ( talk) 13:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
In the Economic environment section, the text of the article covers in detail all the numbers - for the Gross National Product, the deficit spending and unemployment. There are two graphs and a table in the section showing the same data. These charts take up alot of space and do not add any information to the article. Are they needed? Carmarg4 ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Cite should not be there: Concerning FDR's paralytic illness, the article says "this diagnosis was later questioned" and cites Lomazow "The Untold Neurological Disease of Franklin Delano Roosevelt". However, the Lomazow article does not question the cause of FDR's paralytic illness. "The Untold Neurological Disease" is something else, not related to the cause of FDR's paralysis. So the Lomazow citation, which has been in place for about a year, is wrong here. DoctorJoeE introduced this error. Could a regular editor (I don't have an account) look at the text, and change back to the way it was before DoctorJoeE wreaked it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=381994622 (August 2010)
Cite got messed up: I also noticed the Goldman citation got messed up, courtesy of Hoppyh. The mangled cite lists "Random House" as publisher, incorrectly capitalizes article title, and deletes actual journal citation. Could a regular editor look at the citation and restore to previous correct version before Hoppyh damaged it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=427306152 (May 2011) Thanks. 174.21.125.25 ( talk) 22:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
We should put some thing in here stating that he is the descendant of Egbert of Wessex and many more. I will put a link showing his royal family tree. Click on "family tree" to see link. It’s just a suggestion but I think it’s important. -- Kenlukus ( talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlukus ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
In a speech in 1942 Hitler called him "Half Jewsih" (can be seen and heard on Youtube and recorded in a Polish resistance paper reaching the English military and its translation copied to all high ranking officers and officials at the time. Roosevelt being a Jew is repeated as a fact in antisemitic websites like JewWatch.com. It was totally refuted by various researchers. I can show the details one by one, but basically, the fact is that family researchers know exactly who his ancestors are quite far back into time. And they were not Jewish.
An old man now living in my town claims that his father was a young official or the Jewish Aid Committee during WWII, had met and spoke with Roosvelt and that Roosevelt saved countless Jews during WWII. On the other hand Rabbi Isaac Herzog traveled from (then 'Palestine') Israel, to the US during the war (and back!). In his biography "Singled out in his Generation" the author tells of the rabbi's meeting with Roosevelt, who kept on smiling, without replying, although the rabbi spoke about the blood of the Jewish people. The author tells about the rabbi's hair, that changed from black and gray to white, when coming out of the meeting.
The claim about the Saint Lewis is that they had official permission to land in the US but received a specific notification from Roosevelt himself, not to allow them into New York. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This message is to inform editors interested in the topic of this article that there are new documents from the US National Archives related to the topic now available on Commons. The Commons category " Franklin D. Roosevelt Library Public Domain Photographs, compiled 1882 - 1962" currently contains 1992 files. Please browse the category for images which could be used in this or related articles. These files represent the best quality images of the documents that have been made, and if they duplicate any images already being used, please update the article with the higher-resolution images from the National Archives.
These were uploaded as a result of a cooperation between the National Archives and Wikimedia. Please visit our project page at WP:NARA to learn how help with our collaboration with the National Archives. In addition, any textual documents in the series may be transcribed on Wikisource; please see WS:NARA to get involved in transcribing documents. Dominic· t 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't fix the following myself, but all I can do now and for the foreseeable future is report it and ask for help:
Thanks for your help. I wish I didn't have to keep on posting help requests on various talk pages, but chronic illness really limits my ability to even do that sometimes, so... Thanks! -- Geekdiva ( talk) 05:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Concerning FDR's paralytic illness, the article says "this diagnosis was later questioned" and cites Lomazow "The Untold Neurological Disease of Franklin Delano Roosevelt". However, the Lomazow article does not question the cause of FDR's paralytic illness. "The Untold Neurological Disease" is something else, not related to the cause of FDR's paralysis. So the Lomazow citation is 100% wrong here. Could an editor change back to the correct way it was before: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=381994622 Thanks
In the opening paragraph, Roosevelt is quoted describing himself and his cabinet as "left of centre". Using the British spelling may be a faithful reproduction of the sources (though this seems unlikely, as both authors are American). However, in American English, the spelling "center" had overtaken "centre" by the beginning of the 20th Century. (See this Ngram search, as well as this more direct search.) Normally, I wouldn't take exception to a non-American editor using non-American spelling in a wiki article, but it seems unjust to put regionalist misorderings of letters into the mouth of a great American president.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Theodore was FDR's uncle, not fifth cousin, as is incorrectly stated. It needs to be changed to state "uncle". Dkeever2 ( talk)
Teddy was FDR's uncle, not fifth cousin, as is stated. It needs to be stated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkeever2 ( talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
This article describes an Executive Order as raising the limit to 3.2%-- the article on Prohibition says: "As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, especially in the big cities, "Repeal" was eagerly anticipated. On March 23, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead Act known as the Cullen-Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of "3.2 beer" (3.2% alcohol by weight, approximately 4% alcohol by volume) and light wines. The original Volstead Act had defined "intoxicating beverage" as one with greater than 0.5% alcohol.[7] Upon signing the amendment, Roosevelt made his famous remark; "I think this would be a good time for a beer."[37] The Cullen-Harrison Act became law on April 7, 1933, and on April 8, 1933, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. sent a team of Clydesdale horses to deliver a case of Budweiser to the White House. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed on December 5, 1933 with ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. Despite the efforts of Heber J. Grant and the LDS Church, a Utah convention helped ratify the 21st Amendment.[38] While Utah can be considered the deciding 36th state to ratify the Amendment and make it law, the day Utah approved the Amendment, both Pennsylvania and Ohio approved it as well." Someone please reconcile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.69.127 ( talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an incorrect name listed under "The Roosevelt Cabinet". Roosevelt's second Secretary of the Navy was not Edwin Denby, but instead Charles Edison. Edwin Denby was Secretary of the Navy, but during the presidencies of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. I request that this factual error be fixed as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.1.126 ( talk) 01:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe expanding the lede section on WWII as FDR the military leader would help. Remember, he intiated the creation of the Atom bomb. He was a good administrator and was an active in making decisions concerning overall strategy of the War. The mention of the imprisonment of Japanese needs to be stated in the lede section. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this account In the section on FDR's view on race policy would be better balancdif it linked to the wiki entry on the 1943 Casablanca Conference and FDR's astonishing remarks re Morocco sited there; and picked up with approval by the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.101.192 ( talk) 23:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
he had polio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmyjojo ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we know. And your point is......?-- Green4liberty ( talk) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the real point: How do you "know"? What's the evidence for your certainty? And "everyone says so" is not evidence. 71.212.52.164 ( talk) 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please link the Fala reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fala_(dog)
173.79.104.149 ( talk) 18:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I know this may seem like a daunting task, but I recommend a separate Roosevelt Presidential article for the following reasons:
I understand that the New Deal covers most of FDR as President. There was a series of Neutrality Acts, The Gold Reserve Act, Farm Mortgage Refinancing Act; Tydings-McDuffy Act that freed the Philippines in ten years; Cuba was released from Platt Amendment by treaty. A Presidency article might put Roosevelt's lengthly Presidency into historical perspective. However, the articles written adequately cover FDR's Presidency. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
i need a report on franklin roosevelt and how he was a part in world war 2. i need a who what where why when, can you help me i need a paragraph for each one. Please helpp mee(: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.60.43 ( talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The page for Franklin D Roosevelt has a section on the internment of Japanese during World War II, it states that Roosevelt did not imprison Japanese that were US citizens, this is completely false. The section conflicts with your page on Japanese American internment, which states that 110,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese were interned. The beloved FDR imprisoned US citizens in desolate desserts, multiple families sharing tiny shacks, losing most of their belongings and property. This was a horribly shameful act by the government and the president and I believe all Americans should know about it. Mnishi81 ( talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The facts about the internment camps should be referenced, in my opinion, to the government documents released and the apologies made last year about Japanese Americans who were interned. If I remember correctly didn't someone in the Obama administration (perhaps the president himself) say "Japanese Americans"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.222 ( talk) 20:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I know Herbert Hoover died in 1964, but his book "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" was just printed in November 2011. Reportedly, he was about to publish the book when he died. His heirs decided not to publish it, maybe because it was too controversial. I don't know. I'm bringing this book to the attention of the editors of this wiki article in case you were not already aware of it. Much new historical material in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.114.177 ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Any objections to using John Spritzler as source: The People As Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II? Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Any objections to William D. Pederson A Companion to Franklin D. Roosevelt as source? Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
PIGS CAN FLY!The article says that President Roosevelt attempted to enact a 100% income tax on all income over $25,000 which was later rescinded by congress. I do not have access to the book that is cited for this fact, but the title does sound a little fishy, and when I go over a list of executive orders issued in 1941 (which is pretty daunting), I cannot find anything referencing this. Could someone who is more acquainted with the source look into it and possibly correct this? Here's the URL for the National Archives' list of executive orders from 1941, in case you find something: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1941.html Franzose ( talk) 05:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any objection to having a Civil Rights segment in the Presidential section? Throughout all of his Presidency not one Civil Rights legislation was passed, yet, he was able to capture the African American vote due primarily to his wife and his Secretary of Interior Harold L. Ickes efforts to help African Americans. Apparently Roosevelt wanted his new deal legistlation to pass Congress so he did not push for any federal civil rights legislation. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion did not use the word appease. Taking leading progressive position in the U.S. military from 1941 to 1945 on civil rights is only part of Roosevelts presidency. WWII started during his third term in office. In Roosevelts 1931 initial election blacks voted of Herbert Hoover. Also during the initial beginings of the New Deal black leaders protested discrimination in New Deal practices. President Roosevelt was the first President to speak out against the violation of Jewish civil rights in Nazi controlled Europe. If Roosevelt thought Civil Rights was worth mentioning concerning the Jews, maybe Civil Rights is worth mentioning in the article. Why such resistance? Cmguy777 ( talk) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason why the entire Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Race_and_civil_rights section can't be moved to his tenure as president unless he had an effect on it while he was not president?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 03:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I renamed the section to Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Civil_rights. I don't know why it was diff from all the others. The link to the main article Franklin D. Roosevelt's record on civil rights looks like it could use a merge/delete/trim/POV slap as well.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 04:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is wrong:
As far as I can tell, the inauguration was 4 March, FDR declared the bank holiday 5 March, and the Emergency Banking Act was passed 9 March. The Act retroactively legalized the holiday. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to come off as a tribute to FDR. Their is growing critique of his policies in modern times and lets not even forget that he was opposed by congress on a lot of issues. The long term effects of his presidency and his role in the Great Depression need to be looked at it in a more critical view. Countless sources available to do this and I hate it when an article on Clinton or Bush or Obama or Carter offer up criticism and critique of their policies but FDR gets painted as a infallible demigod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.42.140 ( talk) 11:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
"When Roosevelt was inaugurated March 4, 1933 (32 days after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany), the U.S. was at the nadir of the worst depression in its history. A quarter of the workforce was unemployed."
That Hitler was appointed Chancellor 32 days earlier is indeed a fact. But why do we care? Are there critical similarities between Hitler and FDR that need to be noted over both their lives? If it's because they are adversaries in the future, perhaps we should mention that Tojo was promoted to Major General plus or minus "x" number of days from this mark in 1933.
It's an interesting fact. It doesn't add to our understanding of FDR. The fact that Hitler was Chancellor at this point in time has no historical impact on FDR's decisions in 1933. It likely has no impact for his whole first term.
For lack of a better term, the Hitler information is, trivia. I suggest it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.144.31 ( talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The map of places that FDR visited during his presidency has an error. The Crimean Peninsula is mistakenly left uncolored (ironically this was the only part of the USSR that FDR actually visited). It should match the rest of the USSR. 68.37.161.91 ( talk) 08:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the introduction begins with this statement: "Roosevelt dominated the American political scene, not only during the twelve years of his presidency, but for decades afterward." This statement makes no sense considering the fact that Roosevelt did not live for decades after his presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.128.167 ( talk) 00:56, 11 May 2012
This reference in the early life section caused me confusion i.e. conflating with the following sentence espousing liberal, christian values, I thought it meant 90% of the students were on welfare - which is of course, quite the opposite. There is a wikipedia article on Social Register that could be linked and might be useful for non-Americans. I would do it myself but can't find my log in details! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.13.28 ( talk) 10:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This article was de-listed as a Featured Article two years ago, mostly due to lack of citations. I'd like to try to add these citations in the coming days and see if we can get this back up to at least a Good Article. (I'm doing similar work at Eleanor Roosevelt, if anyone's interested in pitching in there, too.) I'll also correct any other issues I see as I go, noting anything potentially controversial here. Any help would be welcome! Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness which may be of concern to editors here, too. It regards the degree to which that article should be based on a 2003 journal article stating that FDR may have had Guillain Barre syndrome. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The flat statement that "However, his age at onset (39 years) and the majority of symptoms of his illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome" is highly contentious. This theory has been advanced, but has not received wide acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 ( talk) 00:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
As long as we are addressing the problem of minority viewpoints, and how much weight to give them in the article, we should look at the last paragraph of the "Second New Deal" section, which begins as a dissenting view of the "two New Deals" concept and veers off into non-sequitors. One cited source, a book called A Patriot's History of the United States, is a right-wing diatribe full of historical inaccuracies, omissions, and jingoistic bias that hardly qualifies as "reliable". The other, the Burns biography, is legitimate, but the cited quote is taken well out of context; if memory serves, Burns was saying that while it might *appear* that FDR was "fighting blindly", he was actually following his own philosophy of trying something, and if it didn't work, admitting it frankly and trying something else. I have no problem, obviously, with including minority opinions (since I'm fighting for inclusion of the Guillain-Barre thing), but they should be accurate. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that was my point. I'm also in complete agreement that conservative viewpoints are needed; but the Schweikart & Allen book was written solely as a rebuttal to Howard Zinn's equally slanted and distorted People's History of the United States, and neither qualifies as a "sober analysis" IMHO. Plenty of valid dissenting analyses of the New Deal and other FDR policies have been published by well-regarded academic historians who do not work for Fox News or MSNBC, and would be much more appropriate in this article. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As long as I know the eyes of other Roosevelt-interested editors are on this page, I thought I'd mention that I just expanded Marguerite LeHand with hopes of getting it promoted to Good Article status. If anyone would like to take a look, other eyes/sources/opinions would be welcome. I'm primarily relying so far on the histories available from my local library: Cook, Rowley, Goodwin, and Smith. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully this won't be particularly controversial, but I removed two-word reference to FDR's being a cheerleader at Harvard that I couldn't immediately find any reliable sources for via Google Books or in the books I have at home; I suspect this is probably true, but seems to veer into the trivial if it's not even appearing in 800-1000 page biographies of the man. It looks as though the main source for this is either Harvard alumni stuff or popular books on cheerleading that include lists of US Presidents who were once cheerleaders (which, by the way, would be a great Wikipedia list, though certain to be deleted).
I'm continuing to source things as I go. I may occasionally make tweaks based on the language/claims of specific sources, but I'll try to be explicit here about any deletions that I make. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of what is in the lede should go into the main body of the article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
One thing that's striking as I go through this article line-by-line is how heavily it relies on Burns' 1956 and 1970 biographies. It's not just for simple facts, but for his judgments and comments as well. I think this one may need a bigger overhaul to get to Good Article status than I'd originally hoped. I realize nobody's going to be able to tackle something that large right away, but I thought I'd leave a note here on the concern for future editing. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm reading the Coker book now -- just started, but it appears to be an excellent source. DoctorJoeE talk to me! 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This may be the wrong place to discuss this, but why doesn't FDR have a separate Presidency article? He of all presidents certainly deserves one!
Anyone up for the job? -- Mhoppmann ( talk) 21:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Why have you included "and Affairs" in the "Marriage" section of this bio ? This is not only slanderous but unsourced nonsense and totally based on fantasy. It is politically motivated , violates "do no harm" and does credibility damage to wikipedia. 172.248.218.48 ( talk) 16:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem very tactful l to include the "affairs" in "Marriage and affairs", I'm not saying you shouldn't mention the affairs, just be decent and leave it out of the headline. I mean for goodness sake, even Bill Clinton has a "public image" headline, at the very least change it to something more npov, thanks.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a photo of FDR's 1928 Gubernatorial Campaign Banner (I won the banner)which I am happy to make available for you to add to the FDR web site. It is a one of a kind and shows FDR as a man of vigor and intelligence. If you would like the picture, please email me at [redacted] Thank you.
Tony Stepanski
TonyStepanski ( talk) 14:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
One of the lines in the summary reads "...worked closely with English Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet...". This should read "British Prime Minister" which more accurately reflects the full title "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" held by Churchill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom). 2.28.186.144 ( talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Done Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 23:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
5thcousins
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).