![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I reverted this edit because of obvious copyright violations, check this. - DonCalo ( talk) 19:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Roosevelt’s block quote has multiple issues. The first problem is that it fails verification. The quote uses sentences in the wrong sequence. FDR first made a general denial that he was violating people’s rights. That is where he told people to ask themselves if their constitutional rights were violated. He told people to go through the Bill of Rights “provision by provision.” All of this occurs on page 49 of the book on FDR's fireside chats.
After talking about individual liberty, FDR talked about economic measures. Near the end of the speech (page 51), he denied being influenced by fascism or communism, saying the New Deal is based on practical measures.
The Manual of Style says, “The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced.” As presented in the article, the quote is out of sequence and conflates two separate parts of the speech.
The guidance essay on quotations states “Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.” Since the FDR block quote contains a rhetorical question, it should be removed (this also applies to the Berlin quote, which is a rhetorical statement (figure of speech)).
Everyone who has been here all year knows that on at least occasions FDR said, without providing specifics, that he was implementing programs based on what fascist and Soviet governments were doing. As late as 1939 FDR expressed sympathy for Mussolini. As late as 1943 he privately proposed reforming India “somewhat on the Soviet line.”
Roosevelt’s claim that he did not violate constitutional rights is also false, though not a lie. It was repudiated by the Supreme Court. In its Schechter decisionthe court unanimously ruled that the NRA asserted, “extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment” New Dealers expected the NRA to be struck down; they were surprised by the court’s strict construction.
The Fringe Theory page says that “While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation.” The FDR block quote is misleading. Other editors revert attempts to provide full contextualization by quoting what FDR said at other times or what the Supreme Court ruled. Consensus cannot overrule the Supreme Court or present misleading information as fact.
The best that can be done is to paraphrase Roosevelt’s claims along with a paraphrase of his private statements and a summary of the Supreme Court’s Schechter ruling. LesLein ( talk) 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Pass3456:
On page 49 of the fireside chat Roosevelt asks listeners to "Turn to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which I have solemnly sworn to maintain and under which your freedom rests secure. Read each provision of that Bill of Rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered a single jot of these great assurancesBold text."
So Roosevelt meant all of the first ten amendments. The highest court in the country unanimously disagreed with him. According to Brinkley New Dealers expected the ruling. They were relieved the NRA was gone. FDR may have been relieved himself. They were upset about the strictness of the court's ruling.
So Roosevelt's claim about not violating constitutional rights is false, though not a lie.
TFD:
When I first pointed out that the court ruled that the NRA violated constitutional rights, an editor said that it had nothing to do with fascism. Now they go together. Which one is it? The topics can't be unrelated one time and related another time.
It's true that the quotations essay is only guidance. However, for an encyclopedia it should go without saying that false statements should allow for refutation or be removed. As the essay says "There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles." Roosevelt acknowledged that radical European governments influenced his economic programs in multiple private conversations. Those quotes are from prominent secondary sources, such as Lewis Feuer at a Johns Hopkins publication. The highest court in the country ruled that one of his key programs violated constitutional rights.
The essay is only guidance, but neutral point of view is policy. It says: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." The tone of the subarticle is basically "Nothing to see here. Move along." Roosevelt was a participant in a heated dispute that scholars write about 80 years after the fact.
I never said Roosevelt was a fascist. Please provide a direct quote from my article edits before repeating this claim.) I quoted Roosevelt saying that his economic programs were somewhat influenced by fascist programs or similar to fascist programs. One scholar, James Q. Whitman, said that by the late 1980s it was "almost routine" for historians to list similarities. He provides plenty of examples.
Speaking of original research, the article on the subject says that speeches are primary sources.
rjensen:
The editor of the fireside chat book provides good background, but the quote presented in the article is wrong. It changes the sequence of sentences without telling the reader. The ellipses represent two omitted pages, concealing the fact that Roosevelt changed subjects several times. Can you identify a style guide available on-line that says text in quotations can be moved around like that? Or that ellipses can hide a change of subjects? The Wiki style manual certainly doesn't permit this. Who provided the block quotes?
The speech itself is original research. It was a contemporaneous document, not a historical document.
Everyone:
The Disputed-inline template "indicates that at least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem." I don't need consensus to insert it.
The block quote has some tests: Did the New Deal violate constitutional rights? Was the New Deal influenced by radical European governments? Unless consensus can overrule the Supreme Court, and there is evidence that Roosevelt lied in the private conversations about what influenced him, the answers are yes. The article must mention this (and Roosevelt's private statements) or remove the quote. LesLein ( talk) 03:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Page 91 of this book edited by rjensen says that there was more to the Schechter case than sick chickens. There were also issues concerning separation of powers and Congress exceeding its authority. It says the government never proved that the Schechters ever sold a sick chicken. FWIW, the book also says that the NRA had "nearly dictatorial" regulatory power over business and represented "latent socialism." If I wrote that it would be fringe theory.
According to Amity Schlaes, other charges against the Schechters included letting customers pick their chickens and providing low prices to customers than what the government wanted. The prosecution went on and on about the Schechters wanting to be competitive (the horror). She said that there was a chicken that had trouble laying eggs. The Schechters would have a difficult time learning of this before the sale.
At my talk page rjensen said that "The Supreme Court never mentioned the Bill of Rights" in the Schechter case. He told me to read the Wikipedia article on the case. I did. Its categories include "United States Tenth Amendment case law." I followed a link to the actual decision. It says that the government's "assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment."
As we all know the Tenth Amendment is one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that Roosevelt asked listeners to review. So everyone can relax. The Supreme Court agrees with me, so the disputed template can be revived and the Schechter ruling can be referenced. In terms of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court's rulings are the ultimate reliable source. As far as NPOV is concerned, I am supported by the most "significant view" possible. To answer rjensen's question, the Schechter's constitutional rights were violated. The New Deal tried to ruin their lives for letting customers pick the chickens they wanted at competitive prices. Jacob Maged was jailed for charging a low price to press suits. Some criminals. LesLein ( talk) 01:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
See the Tenth Amendment and read the Schechter decision. The Schechter decision specifically and unanimously states that the NIRA violated the Tenth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Schechters won by claiming their Tenth Amendment rights. Canadian law had nothing to do with the decision. It is the block quote that uses violation of constitutional rights as the test of fascism; it wasn't my idea. As long as the quote is there, a response is required. Especially when the claim is wrong. Either remove the quote or permit a response. LesLein ( talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Why didn't TFD have to provide a reliable secondary source for his statement above? Why didn't you require that editor to provide a reliable source for the statement that "As Rjensen mentions, the NRA was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Bill of Rights"? Is there any source for that? Can we now ignore TFD's arguments until sources are provided? Or are there two sets of rules?
Arthur Schlesinger wrote that the Supreme Court found the AAA in violation of the Tenth Amendment. We can now add Butler to the list of people whose rights were violated. There were others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
What reliable source has Rjensen cited? At my talk page he wrote that Schechter never mentioned the Bill of Rights. Rjensen still hasn't provided a reliable source for that claim and never will. The new excuse is that the Tenth Amendment isn't an "individual" right. Neither the main text of the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights uses the term "individual." It always refers to "the people" instead. This wasn't a collective right. Rjensen can't quote a legal textbook that says the Tenth Amendment isn't an individual right. Nor does he provide a single source that says that the Constitution distinguishes between individual and other types of rights. Once again we have to take his word for it. The Tenth Amendment specifically mentions "the people," not just states. Read Schechter and the Bill of Rights.
At least TFD provides one source; but it doesn't support the argument. Darby doesn't mention individual rights or the Schechter decision. It did make the famous comment about the Tenth Amendment being only a "truism." Tenth Amendment jurisprudence has revived since then. Check the Printz decision. The majority decision cites the Schechter decision favorably. There are others. Regarding the statement: "All federations divide powers between different levels of government - that does not mean that all federations guarantee individual rights": In the U.S. all state officials are bound by oath to uphold the federal constitution. That means they have to guarantee individual rights.
The Wikipedia article on individual and group rights cites the Bill of Rights as examples of individual rights. The whole "individual rights" claim is a red herring. In his fireside chat that's the source of this dispute, Roosevelt said "Read each provision of that Bill of Rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered a single jot of these great assurances." He didn't add "But stop after the Ninth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment doesn't protect your individual rights."
I can provide an excellent reference that the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights. But first I want to see a list of all the other excuses for keeping the block quote from the fireside chat. No moving the goal post this time. LesLein ( talk) 02:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
David P. Currie is the scholar I mentioned above. He was a distinguished constitutional law professer. He clerked for a famous New Dealer. His book explains why federalsim (Tenth Amendment) is one of the best protections of individual rights (page 560). He also indicates that Schechter was decided correctly.
A news item on this year's Supreme Court docket identified an even better reference. Carol Bond committed a despicable act. But the worst criminal has rights. She claimed that her federal prosecution violated her Tenth Amendment rights. She won unanimously.
The Supreme Court statedthat "The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State." It further stated that "Federalism's limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism ..." So the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights.
The Supreme Court cited Schechter as a precedent for its decision. Schechter has been cited many times since 1935, often in cases where states aren't a party.
Besides Currie, my experts include Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. I haven't seen any for the other position. These justices represent appointments by all presidents from Reagan through Obama. It will be difficult for any editor to say that he or she knows more than the Supreme Court.
The FDR block quote violates policies on NPOV, NOR, and Verificability. It violates the Manual of Style and Quotation guidance. It is not at all factual. It needs to go. LesLein ( talk) 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of time here tonight, but I'll ask one question in an effort to clear up one item.
The article says:
"Their preliminary studies on the origins of the fascist dictatorships and the American (reformed) democracy came to the conclusion that besides essential differences 'the crises led to a limited degree of convergence' on the level of economic and social policy.'"
"Their" is a reference to works by Garraty and Winkler. Pages 5 and 6 from Patel's book serve as the source. Where does Patel say this? I checked every page where Patel mentions Garraty. There isn't a single page that says anything like this. The same goes for Winkler. LesLein ( talk) 23:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The last paragraph of Garraty's article points out the vast differences in politics and motivations. He then provides the following sentence:
"The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations."
Earlier Garraty wrote that the two governments had "striking similarities." There's no point writing a 39 page article on two things that had nothing in common. Patel says "strikingly similar." Patel's book description says "stunning similarities." His text says that the economic similarities form the "larger background" for his book. Schivelbusch wrote an entire book on the "fundamental similarities." There's no point writing hundreds of pages on programs that had nothing in common.
Pace Pass3456's repeated claims, the CCC was influenced by the German Labor Services. Page 400 of Patel's book states that in 1938 Roosevelt received a report from his Berlin embassy on the German Labor Service. The U.S. didn't "copy these measures in their entirety: instead, it emphasized the fundamental differences" in political goals. Roosevelt wrote to his ambassador: "All of this helps us in planning, even though our methods are of the democratic variety!" Roosevelt's ambassador thanked the Germans for their help. The CCC and the German Labor Service regularly exchanged material. I know of at least four quotes where Roosevelt said he was influenced by fascist economic programs. No one has ever claimed why FDR would make such statements if they weren't true.
If Pass3456 is right, then the following sequence must be true:
1. Garraty writes in his conclusion: "The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations."
2. Patel uses the Garraty article as a reference.
3. Patel believes that in economic policy there is only a "limited degree of convergence."
The article's findings on Garraty's conclusion are the exact opposite of what Garraty wrote. Regardless of anyone's opinion, there is never an excuse for an encyclopedia to do this.
Here's a question for Rjensen that I've been meaning to ask. Last January one of your edit summaries said in part:
"the first quote sounds ominous; but read the whole text & see FDR was denying he was acting too slowly"
This was in response to FDR's famous line paraphrased by Ickes that "what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way."
What was your source for your claim? Can you cite and quote a reference? The book you edited on the Great Depression has a subchapter starting on page 52 titled "A Legislative Storm." That doesn't seem too slow. LesLein ( talk) 01:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Then shouldn't the article reflect the similarities by quoting Patel's full sentence? Patel and Garraty both said the economic similarities were striking. The first sentence of the article says that it's about an economic program. The economic similarities were the whole basis for the "charges" (actually "cautionary comparisons").
Garraty's conclusion was "The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations." No one has explained how that results in a "limited degree of convergence." The Patel book and Garraty article can be accessed on the web for free. No one can quote a full sentence from either source that supports what the article says.
Back in January Rjensen wrote: "There is an entire article on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt that has details on charges he was pro-big business, anti-business, fascist, anti-Jewish etc." I suspect that this is the real motivation for people here; nothing about the New Deal can seem critical of Roosevelt. LesLein ( talk) 16:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The FDR quote is an important statement and it meets all the Wikipedia rules. The NPOV rules deal with wiki editors not historical persons. There is no doubt about the accuracy and it has been included in standard sources. Les Lein is the only person in the USA who thinks it is "inaccurate" or "false" (& that is based on Les's personal reading of constitutional history). Rjensen ( talk) 06:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
My reply took a while because like others here, I have a life outside of Wikipedia (sorry Dave Dial). It is lengthy because there is so much wrong with the above statements and the block quote. I also have to repeat some information that other editors should have read before.
Original Research and “that is based on Les's personal reading of constitutional history”
Dave Dial should know that NOR policy doesn’t apply to Talk pages. If Dave Dial and Rjensen had checked above, they would see that I relied on a secondary source. I don’t think it’s possible to find a better one than David Currie. The book I used is part of a series that won an award from the Supreme Court Historical Society. Page 223 says:
“Surely [Cardozo] and all his colleagues were right on the facts of the case [Schechter]: to permit Congress to regulate the wages and hours in a tiny slaughterhouse because of remote effects on interstate commerce would leave nothing for the tenth amendment to reserve.”
Rjensen said that Schechter never mentioned the Bill of Rights. It is a proven fact that he is wrong and I am right. The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion reflects what I wrote. .
My “personal reading” is really the Supreme Court’s. I think it would be unspeakably arrogant for a handful of editors to overrule multiple Supreme Court rulings.
“Obscure” (Due and Undue Weight) and “Les Lein is the only person in the USA who thinks it is "inaccurate" or "false"
I’ll deal with “inaccurate” part later. After I established that Schechter cited the Bill of Rights, the argument switched to claims that the 1935 decision is obsolete and the Tenth Amendment doesn’t protect individual rights. In a 2011 case, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tenth Amendment protects individuals. It used Schechter as a precedent. That makes at least nine people in the USA who think Roosevelt’s claim is false. I am not alone. It is Rjensen and others who are using their personal interpretation of the constitution.
When it comes to due weight in constitutional law, the Supreme Court is the 300 pound gorilla. No constitutional ruling ever used Roosevelt’s fireside chat, yet FDR’s denial gets 100 percent of the weight. That is undue weight and an NPOV violation. Use of the quote doesn’t satisfy “all Wikipedia rules.”
"The FDR quote is an important statement and it meets all the Wikipedia rules. The NPOV rules deal with wiki editors not historical persons. There is no doubt about the accuracy and it has been included in standard sources"
Anyone checking the NOR policy article will see that speeches are original research, like diaries and memoirs. That’s one rule violation. Everyone has had months or years to provide a secondary source.
The problem with using a secondary source that exactly repeats the block quote is that there is no doubt about its inaccuracy. The quote flips around Roosevelt’s two statements. Some other people agree with me. These are the keepers of Roovevelt's official private papers and addresses. The rhetorical question about constitutional rights starts on page 314. The part about fascism, communism, and socialism is on page 317. In between these pages, Roosevelt talks about subjects like economic security, child labor, and the NRA. Fascism and constitutional rights are separate subjects (as TFD said earlier).
The Manual of Style says the following regarding quotations:
“The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced.”
The only exceptions are for brackets and ellipses. The style manual says, “Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.” The block quote does exactly that.
The block quote violates the manual of style. A misquote repeated from a secondary source is still a misquote.
FDR’s block quote violates the rules on quotations:
“Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false. See this example ([1]) at Phoenix, Arizona. There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles.”
Roosevelt’s claims are obviously false, unless the Supreme Court and his private statements are wrong.
The block quote violates another quotation rule:
“Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.”
The fireside chat uses a rhetorical question. This violates NPOV. While historical figures like Roosevelt don’t have to comply with NPOV, especially when they’re dead, editors quoting them do. NPOV says the following regarding quotations:
“Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.”
The dispute is heated now; it must have been white hot in 1934. Roosevelt’s denial was in a major address. I don’t recall Bush or Obama giving major speeches denouncing the truthers or birthers, respectively. I agree that Roosevelt’s denial is important. However, for accuracy and neutrality, it has to be paraphrased without the part on constitutional rights.
NPOV further states:
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”
So let’s quote all of FDR’s views on the New Deal and fascism. This includes his statement that he was interested in pursuing the policies of “that admirable Italian gentleman.” Let’s also include what FDR said to Harold Ickes:
"what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done is Russia and even some things that were being done by Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way."
Like all politicians, Roosevelt was more candid and less biased in his private statements. Those quotes are better sourced and more accurate than the block quote. No one ever contested the statements. If they are fringe theory, then FDR is a fringe theorist on the subject and shouldn’t be quoted at all.
In Tim McNeese’s book on the Great Depression, edited by Richard Jensen (Rjensen), page 64 says, “The strict rules of capitalism took a back seat to the latent socialism of the NRA.”
That means that every part of Roosevelt’s block quote is false.
Fringey” [sic]
Over at the NRA article no editor, including Rjensen, thinks that Alistair Cooke’s line about a benevolent dictatorship is fringe theory. Rjensen apparently doesn’t think that Cooke was too old and out of touch to be paraphrased. I guess it wasn’t really all that terrible to refer to it on this talk page.
The Tim McNeese book on the Great Depression that Rjensen edited says, “The National Recovery Administration exerted almost dictatorial power over U.S. business.” McNeese didn’t say that the NRA was benevolent. I don’t think he is a fringe theorist.
Dave Dial proved that he can link to the fringe theory article; nothing else. Dave Dial should read the fringe theory article and find a source before describing George Kennan as a “conservative latter-day author” and “commentator.” Dave Dial never explained why FDR would launch a fringe theory about the New Deal. He didn’t justify his fringe theory at the admin noticeboard; quite the opposite. I look forward to Dave Dial’s explanation of how an inaccurate quotation and a few editors can overrule several unanimous Supreme Court decisions. LesLein ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The NOR policy violation can be overcome, but not by using a misquote. The NPOV and verifiability violations cannot. Neither can the violations of quotation rules. If the block quote is right, then a first rate Supreme Court historian, the Supreme Court, FDR’s private statements, Rjensen’s colleague, and Roosevelt’s official papers are wrong. Those are insurmountable problems. LesLein ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I think most historians agree with FDR that Dr New Deal had been replaced by Dr Win the War. Most of the reforms mentioned here under WW2 were promoted by conservatives, not New Dealers. I think they should be in the United States home front during World War II article Rjensen ( talk) 23:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Listed under harmful effects of the New Deal there's "caused a growth of class consciousness among farmers and manual workers (Billington and Ridge)[136]". Better dead than red or what's going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.65.171 ( talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's probably unnecessary to have a separate page for the Second New Deal if its in-depth discussion happens on this page. Trevor1324 ( talk) 05:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that solution does make more sense. I'm not super attached to the idea of merging them anyway, I just thought the current set-up was subpar. Trevor1324 ( talk) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
-I agree strongly with the immediately above: due to the size, significance, and difference in nature of the Second New Deal, if there's any talk here about merging the Second New Deal's page wholly into the first, it can mean only one thing: not nearly enough has been written about it. There's actually something of a paradox, here: The New Deal, as a whole, certainly includes the Second New Deal (well, I'd say), and material about the 2nd phase should be on The New Deal page. However, The Second New Deal was also a distinct entity, one of the most significant and successful legislative movements, distinct from the 1933-4 New Deal in several respects, and...it's too big not to have a page of its own. I suppose a modestly briefer summary of the 2nd New Deal could be included in this page, while maintaining the full 'Second New Deal' page independently, but ultimately, regardless of how the chips fall down, I can't support the submerging of the Second New Deal into merely a section of the first--it was too big, too important, shifted the Overton Window so much more than the original New Deal, is relevant politically to Hughie Long's demagoguery, and, well, certainly produced more enduring political shifts, being both the point at which FDR shifted decisively to Social Liberalism (and created Social Security, did Financial Regulation properly, etc) and thus made the dominant wing of the Democratic Party ultimately Liberal AND, because of the lack of ambiguity in that shift, presumably played a role in the almost semi-formal division of the party in 1937 by going farther left than Nance Garner was willing to tolerate. It all connects quite closely to the Supreme Court fight that year, also--no, it's just too big a historical shift to be mashed into a page headlined by the First New Deal. It'd be like combining Nixon's 1971 and (much different) 1974 Healthcare plans as one subject (only this is a much larger and more important pair of subjects, to be clear). -CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.248.77 ( talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on New Deal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
New Deal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Deal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but this article feels very long to read. It's a complicated and complex topic, but there is no need to tell the story in one giant article. -- Buffaboy talk 05:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
JUST A QUICK QUESTION. HOW DID THIS NEW SET OF IDEOLOGIES HELP MINORITIES DURING THIS TIME? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Culmitch (
talk •
contribs)
18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
In the article New Deal, the majority of the information in this article was relevant to the article topic and did not distract from the main point. For example, the article talks about the origins of the New Deal and how the New Deal was implemented. The article even evaluates all the New Deal policies Also, the article talked about the end goal of the New Deal and how that goal was going to be accomplished. Rather that being distracting the article draws the readers attention by talking about every aspect the New Deal had to offer.
Lokeo122 ( talk) 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Lokeo122
This article is incredibly well written and stays focused on the main points of the New Deal. Giving examples in each point, and expressing its meaning. This article has strong head sections, reliable sources, and is very well structured. RyanPresleyLong ( talk) 16:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I reverted this edit because of obvious copyright violations, check this. - DonCalo ( talk) 19:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Roosevelt’s block quote has multiple issues. The first problem is that it fails verification. The quote uses sentences in the wrong sequence. FDR first made a general denial that he was violating people’s rights. That is where he told people to ask themselves if their constitutional rights were violated. He told people to go through the Bill of Rights “provision by provision.” All of this occurs on page 49 of the book on FDR's fireside chats.
After talking about individual liberty, FDR talked about economic measures. Near the end of the speech (page 51), he denied being influenced by fascism or communism, saying the New Deal is based on practical measures.
The Manual of Style says, “The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced.” As presented in the article, the quote is out of sequence and conflates two separate parts of the speech.
The guidance essay on quotations states “Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.” Since the FDR block quote contains a rhetorical question, it should be removed (this also applies to the Berlin quote, which is a rhetorical statement (figure of speech)).
Everyone who has been here all year knows that on at least occasions FDR said, without providing specifics, that he was implementing programs based on what fascist and Soviet governments were doing. As late as 1939 FDR expressed sympathy for Mussolini. As late as 1943 he privately proposed reforming India “somewhat on the Soviet line.”
Roosevelt’s claim that he did not violate constitutional rights is also false, though not a lie. It was repudiated by the Supreme Court. In its Schechter decisionthe court unanimously ruled that the NRA asserted, “extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment” New Dealers expected the NRA to be struck down; they were surprised by the court’s strict construction.
The Fringe Theory page says that “While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation.” The FDR block quote is misleading. Other editors revert attempts to provide full contextualization by quoting what FDR said at other times or what the Supreme Court ruled. Consensus cannot overrule the Supreme Court or present misleading information as fact.
The best that can be done is to paraphrase Roosevelt’s claims along with a paraphrase of his private statements and a summary of the Supreme Court’s Schechter ruling. LesLein ( talk) 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Pass3456:
On page 49 of the fireside chat Roosevelt asks listeners to "Turn to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which I have solemnly sworn to maintain and under which your freedom rests secure. Read each provision of that Bill of Rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered a single jot of these great assurancesBold text."
So Roosevelt meant all of the first ten amendments. The highest court in the country unanimously disagreed with him. According to Brinkley New Dealers expected the ruling. They were relieved the NRA was gone. FDR may have been relieved himself. They were upset about the strictness of the court's ruling.
So Roosevelt's claim about not violating constitutional rights is false, though not a lie.
TFD:
When I first pointed out that the court ruled that the NRA violated constitutional rights, an editor said that it had nothing to do with fascism. Now they go together. Which one is it? The topics can't be unrelated one time and related another time.
It's true that the quotations essay is only guidance. However, for an encyclopedia it should go without saying that false statements should allow for refutation or be removed. As the essay says "There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles." Roosevelt acknowledged that radical European governments influenced his economic programs in multiple private conversations. Those quotes are from prominent secondary sources, such as Lewis Feuer at a Johns Hopkins publication. The highest court in the country ruled that one of his key programs violated constitutional rights.
The essay is only guidance, but neutral point of view is policy. It says: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." The tone of the subarticle is basically "Nothing to see here. Move along." Roosevelt was a participant in a heated dispute that scholars write about 80 years after the fact.
I never said Roosevelt was a fascist. Please provide a direct quote from my article edits before repeating this claim.) I quoted Roosevelt saying that his economic programs were somewhat influenced by fascist programs or similar to fascist programs. One scholar, James Q. Whitman, said that by the late 1980s it was "almost routine" for historians to list similarities. He provides plenty of examples.
Speaking of original research, the article on the subject says that speeches are primary sources.
rjensen:
The editor of the fireside chat book provides good background, but the quote presented in the article is wrong. It changes the sequence of sentences without telling the reader. The ellipses represent two omitted pages, concealing the fact that Roosevelt changed subjects several times. Can you identify a style guide available on-line that says text in quotations can be moved around like that? Or that ellipses can hide a change of subjects? The Wiki style manual certainly doesn't permit this. Who provided the block quotes?
The speech itself is original research. It was a contemporaneous document, not a historical document.
Everyone:
The Disputed-inline template "indicates that at least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem." I don't need consensus to insert it.
The block quote has some tests: Did the New Deal violate constitutional rights? Was the New Deal influenced by radical European governments? Unless consensus can overrule the Supreme Court, and there is evidence that Roosevelt lied in the private conversations about what influenced him, the answers are yes. The article must mention this (and Roosevelt's private statements) or remove the quote. LesLein ( talk) 03:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Page 91 of this book edited by rjensen says that there was more to the Schechter case than sick chickens. There were also issues concerning separation of powers and Congress exceeding its authority. It says the government never proved that the Schechters ever sold a sick chicken. FWIW, the book also says that the NRA had "nearly dictatorial" regulatory power over business and represented "latent socialism." If I wrote that it would be fringe theory.
According to Amity Schlaes, other charges against the Schechters included letting customers pick their chickens and providing low prices to customers than what the government wanted. The prosecution went on and on about the Schechters wanting to be competitive (the horror). She said that there was a chicken that had trouble laying eggs. The Schechters would have a difficult time learning of this before the sale.
At my talk page rjensen said that "The Supreme Court never mentioned the Bill of Rights" in the Schechter case. He told me to read the Wikipedia article on the case. I did. Its categories include "United States Tenth Amendment case law." I followed a link to the actual decision. It says that the government's "assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment."
As we all know the Tenth Amendment is one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that Roosevelt asked listeners to review. So everyone can relax. The Supreme Court agrees with me, so the disputed template can be revived and the Schechter ruling can be referenced. In terms of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court's rulings are the ultimate reliable source. As far as NPOV is concerned, I am supported by the most "significant view" possible. To answer rjensen's question, the Schechter's constitutional rights were violated. The New Deal tried to ruin their lives for letting customers pick the chickens they wanted at competitive prices. Jacob Maged was jailed for charging a low price to press suits. Some criminals. LesLein ( talk) 01:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
See the Tenth Amendment and read the Schechter decision. The Schechter decision specifically and unanimously states that the NIRA violated the Tenth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Schechters won by claiming their Tenth Amendment rights. Canadian law had nothing to do with the decision. It is the block quote that uses violation of constitutional rights as the test of fascism; it wasn't my idea. As long as the quote is there, a response is required. Especially when the claim is wrong. Either remove the quote or permit a response. LesLein ( talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Why didn't TFD have to provide a reliable secondary source for his statement above? Why didn't you require that editor to provide a reliable source for the statement that "As Rjensen mentions, the NRA was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Bill of Rights"? Is there any source for that? Can we now ignore TFD's arguments until sources are provided? Or are there two sets of rules?
Arthur Schlesinger wrote that the Supreme Court found the AAA in violation of the Tenth Amendment. We can now add Butler to the list of people whose rights were violated. There were others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
What reliable source has Rjensen cited? At my talk page he wrote that Schechter never mentioned the Bill of Rights. Rjensen still hasn't provided a reliable source for that claim and never will. The new excuse is that the Tenth Amendment isn't an "individual" right. Neither the main text of the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights uses the term "individual." It always refers to "the people" instead. This wasn't a collective right. Rjensen can't quote a legal textbook that says the Tenth Amendment isn't an individual right. Nor does he provide a single source that says that the Constitution distinguishes between individual and other types of rights. Once again we have to take his word for it. The Tenth Amendment specifically mentions "the people," not just states. Read Schechter and the Bill of Rights.
At least TFD provides one source; but it doesn't support the argument. Darby doesn't mention individual rights or the Schechter decision. It did make the famous comment about the Tenth Amendment being only a "truism." Tenth Amendment jurisprudence has revived since then. Check the Printz decision. The majority decision cites the Schechter decision favorably. There are others. Regarding the statement: "All federations divide powers between different levels of government - that does not mean that all federations guarantee individual rights": In the U.S. all state officials are bound by oath to uphold the federal constitution. That means they have to guarantee individual rights.
The Wikipedia article on individual and group rights cites the Bill of Rights as examples of individual rights. The whole "individual rights" claim is a red herring. In his fireside chat that's the source of this dispute, Roosevelt said "Read each provision of that Bill of Rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered a single jot of these great assurances." He didn't add "But stop after the Ninth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment doesn't protect your individual rights."
I can provide an excellent reference that the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights. But first I want to see a list of all the other excuses for keeping the block quote from the fireside chat. No moving the goal post this time. LesLein ( talk) 02:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
David P. Currie is the scholar I mentioned above. He was a distinguished constitutional law professer. He clerked for a famous New Dealer. His book explains why federalsim (Tenth Amendment) is one of the best protections of individual rights (page 560). He also indicates that Schechter was decided correctly.
A news item on this year's Supreme Court docket identified an even better reference. Carol Bond committed a despicable act. But the worst criminal has rights. She claimed that her federal prosecution violated her Tenth Amendment rights. She won unanimously.
The Supreme Court statedthat "The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State." It further stated that "Federalism's limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism ..." So the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights.
The Supreme Court cited Schechter as a precedent for its decision. Schechter has been cited many times since 1935, often in cases where states aren't a party.
Besides Currie, my experts include Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. I haven't seen any for the other position. These justices represent appointments by all presidents from Reagan through Obama. It will be difficult for any editor to say that he or she knows more than the Supreme Court.
The FDR block quote violates policies on NPOV, NOR, and Verificability. It violates the Manual of Style and Quotation guidance. It is not at all factual. It needs to go. LesLein ( talk) 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of time here tonight, but I'll ask one question in an effort to clear up one item.
The article says:
"Their preliminary studies on the origins of the fascist dictatorships and the American (reformed) democracy came to the conclusion that besides essential differences 'the crises led to a limited degree of convergence' on the level of economic and social policy.'"
"Their" is a reference to works by Garraty and Winkler. Pages 5 and 6 from Patel's book serve as the source. Where does Patel say this? I checked every page where Patel mentions Garraty. There isn't a single page that says anything like this. The same goes for Winkler. LesLein ( talk) 23:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The last paragraph of Garraty's article points out the vast differences in politics and motivations. He then provides the following sentence:
"The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations."
Earlier Garraty wrote that the two governments had "striking similarities." There's no point writing a 39 page article on two things that had nothing in common. Patel says "strikingly similar." Patel's book description says "stunning similarities." His text says that the economic similarities form the "larger background" for his book. Schivelbusch wrote an entire book on the "fundamental similarities." There's no point writing hundreds of pages on programs that had nothing in common.
Pace Pass3456's repeated claims, the CCC was influenced by the German Labor Services. Page 400 of Patel's book states that in 1938 Roosevelt received a report from his Berlin embassy on the German Labor Service. The U.S. didn't "copy these measures in their entirety: instead, it emphasized the fundamental differences" in political goals. Roosevelt wrote to his ambassador: "All of this helps us in planning, even though our methods are of the democratic variety!" Roosevelt's ambassador thanked the Germans for their help. The CCC and the German Labor Service regularly exchanged material. I know of at least four quotes where Roosevelt said he was influenced by fascist economic programs. No one has ever claimed why FDR would make such statements if they weren't true.
If Pass3456 is right, then the following sequence must be true:
1. Garraty writes in his conclusion: "The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations."
2. Patel uses the Garraty article as a reference.
3. Patel believes that in economic policy there is only a "limited degree of convergence."
The article's findings on Garraty's conclusion are the exact opposite of what Garraty wrote. Regardless of anyone's opinion, there is never an excuse for an encyclopedia to do this.
Here's a question for Rjensen that I've been meaning to ask. Last January one of your edit summaries said in part:
"the first quote sounds ominous; but read the whole text & see FDR was denying he was acting too slowly"
This was in response to FDR's famous line paraphrased by Ickes that "what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way."
What was your source for your claim? Can you cite and quote a reference? The book you edited on the Great Depression has a subchapter starting on page 52 titled "A Legislative Storm." That doesn't seem too slow. LesLein ( talk) 01:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Then shouldn't the article reflect the similarities by quoting Patel's full sentence? Patel and Garraty both said the economic similarities were striking. The first sentence of the article says that it's about an economic program. The economic similarities were the whole basis for the "charges" (actually "cautionary comparisons").
Garraty's conclusion was "The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations." No one has explained how that results in a "limited degree of convergence." The Patel book and Garraty article can be accessed on the web for free. No one can quote a full sentence from either source that supports what the article says.
Back in January Rjensen wrote: "There is an entire article on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt that has details on charges he was pro-big business, anti-business, fascist, anti-Jewish etc." I suspect that this is the real motivation for people here; nothing about the New Deal can seem critical of Roosevelt. LesLein ( talk) 16:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The FDR quote is an important statement and it meets all the Wikipedia rules. The NPOV rules deal with wiki editors not historical persons. There is no doubt about the accuracy and it has been included in standard sources. Les Lein is the only person in the USA who thinks it is "inaccurate" or "false" (& that is based on Les's personal reading of constitutional history). Rjensen ( talk) 06:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
My reply took a while because like others here, I have a life outside of Wikipedia (sorry Dave Dial). It is lengthy because there is so much wrong with the above statements and the block quote. I also have to repeat some information that other editors should have read before.
Original Research and “that is based on Les's personal reading of constitutional history”
Dave Dial should know that NOR policy doesn’t apply to Talk pages. If Dave Dial and Rjensen had checked above, they would see that I relied on a secondary source. I don’t think it’s possible to find a better one than David Currie. The book I used is part of a series that won an award from the Supreme Court Historical Society. Page 223 says:
“Surely [Cardozo] and all his colleagues were right on the facts of the case [Schechter]: to permit Congress to regulate the wages and hours in a tiny slaughterhouse because of remote effects on interstate commerce would leave nothing for the tenth amendment to reserve.”
Rjensen said that Schechter never mentioned the Bill of Rights. It is a proven fact that he is wrong and I am right. The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion reflects what I wrote. .
My “personal reading” is really the Supreme Court’s. I think it would be unspeakably arrogant for a handful of editors to overrule multiple Supreme Court rulings.
“Obscure” (Due and Undue Weight) and “Les Lein is the only person in the USA who thinks it is "inaccurate" or "false"
I’ll deal with “inaccurate” part later. After I established that Schechter cited the Bill of Rights, the argument switched to claims that the 1935 decision is obsolete and the Tenth Amendment doesn’t protect individual rights. In a 2011 case, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tenth Amendment protects individuals. It used Schechter as a precedent. That makes at least nine people in the USA who think Roosevelt’s claim is false. I am not alone. It is Rjensen and others who are using their personal interpretation of the constitution.
When it comes to due weight in constitutional law, the Supreme Court is the 300 pound gorilla. No constitutional ruling ever used Roosevelt’s fireside chat, yet FDR’s denial gets 100 percent of the weight. That is undue weight and an NPOV violation. Use of the quote doesn’t satisfy “all Wikipedia rules.”
"The FDR quote is an important statement and it meets all the Wikipedia rules. The NPOV rules deal with wiki editors not historical persons. There is no doubt about the accuracy and it has been included in standard sources"
Anyone checking the NOR policy article will see that speeches are original research, like diaries and memoirs. That’s one rule violation. Everyone has had months or years to provide a secondary source.
The problem with using a secondary source that exactly repeats the block quote is that there is no doubt about its inaccuracy. The quote flips around Roosevelt’s two statements. Some other people agree with me. These are the keepers of Roovevelt's official private papers and addresses. The rhetorical question about constitutional rights starts on page 314. The part about fascism, communism, and socialism is on page 317. In between these pages, Roosevelt talks about subjects like economic security, child labor, and the NRA. Fascism and constitutional rights are separate subjects (as TFD said earlier).
The Manual of Style says the following regarding quotations:
“The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced.”
The only exceptions are for brackets and ellipses. The style manual says, “Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.” The block quote does exactly that.
The block quote violates the manual of style. A misquote repeated from a secondary source is still a misquote.
FDR’s block quote violates the rules on quotations:
“Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false. See this example ([1]) at Phoenix, Arizona. There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles.”
Roosevelt’s claims are obviously false, unless the Supreme Court and his private statements are wrong.
The block quote violates another quotation rule:
“Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.”
The fireside chat uses a rhetorical question. This violates NPOV. While historical figures like Roosevelt don’t have to comply with NPOV, especially when they’re dead, editors quoting them do. NPOV says the following regarding quotations:
“Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.”
The dispute is heated now; it must have been white hot in 1934. Roosevelt’s denial was in a major address. I don’t recall Bush or Obama giving major speeches denouncing the truthers or birthers, respectively. I agree that Roosevelt’s denial is important. However, for accuracy and neutrality, it has to be paraphrased without the part on constitutional rights.
NPOV further states:
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”
So let’s quote all of FDR’s views on the New Deal and fascism. This includes his statement that he was interested in pursuing the policies of “that admirable Italian gentleman.” Let’s also include what FDR said to Harold Ickes:
"what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done is Russia and even some things that were being done by Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way."
Like all politicians, Roosevelt was more candid and less biased in his private statements. Those quotes are better sourced and more accurate than the block quote. No one ever contested the statements. If they are fringe theory, then FDR is a fringe theorist on the subject and shouldn’t be quoted at all.
In Tim McNeese’s book on the Great Depression, edited by Richard Jensen (Rjensen), page 64 says, “The strict rules of capitalism took a back seat to the latent socialism of the NRA.”
That means that every part of Roosevelt’s block quote is false.
Fringey” [sic]
Over at the NRA article no editor, including Rjensen, thinks that Alistair Cooke’s line about a benevolent dictatorship is fringe theory. Rjensen apparently doesn’t think that Cooke was too old and out of touch to be paraphrased. I guess it wasn’t really all that terrible to refer to it on this talk page.
The Tim McNeese book on the Great Depression that Rjensen edited says, “The National Recovery Administration exerted almost dictatorial power over U.S. business.” McNeese didn’t say that the NRA was benevolent. I don’t think he is a fringe theorist.
Dave Dial proved that he can link to the fringe theory article; nothing else. Dave Dial should read the fringe theory article and find a source before describing George Kennan as a “conservative latter-day author” and “commentator.” Dave Dial never explained why FDR would launch a fringe theory about the New Deal. He didn’t justify his fringe theory at the admin noticeboard; quite the opposite. I look forward to Dave Dial’s explanation of how an inaccurate quotation and a few editors can overrule several unanimous Supreme Court decisions. LesLein ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The NOR policy violation can be overcome, but not by using a misquote. The NPOV and verifiability violations cannot. Neither can the violations of quotation rules. If the block quote is right, then a first rate Supreme Court historian, the Supreme Court, FDR’s private statements, Rjensen’s colleague, and Roosevelt’s official papers are wrong. Those are insurmountable problems. LesLein ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I think most historians agree with FDR that Dr New Deal had been replaced by Dr Win the War. Most of the reforms mentioned here under WW2 were promoted by conservatives, not New Dealers. I think they should be in the United States home front during World War II article Rjensen ( talk) 23:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Listed under harmful effects of the New Deal there's "caused a growth of class consciousness among farmers and manual workers (Billington and Ridge)[136]". Better dead than red or what's going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.65.171 ( talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's probably unnecessary to have a separate page for the Second New Deal if its in-depth discussion happens on this page. Trevor1324 ( talk) 05:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that solution does make more sense. I'm not super attached to the idea of merging them anyway, I just thought the current set-up was subpar. Trevor1324 ( talk) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
-I agree strongly with the immediately above: due to the size, significance, and difference in nature of the Second New Deal, if there's any talk here about merging the Second New Deal's page wholly into the first, it can mean only one thing: not nearly enough has been written about it. There's actually something of a paradox, here: The New Deal, as a whole, certainly includes the Second New Deal (well, I'd say), and material about the 2nd phase should be on The New Deal page. However, The Second New Deal was also a distinct entity, one of the most significant and successful legislative movements, distinct from the 1933-4 New Deal in several respects, and...it's too big not to have a page of its own. I suppose a modestly briefer summary of the 2nd New Deal could be included in this page, while maintaining the full 'Second New Deal' page independently, but ultimately, regardless of how the chips fall down, I can't support the submerging of the Second New Deal into merely a section of the first--it was too big, too important, shifted the Overton Window so much more than the original New Deal, is relevant politically to Hughie Long's demagoguery, and, well, certainly produced more enduring political shifts, being both the point at which FDR shifted decisively to Social Liberalism (and created Social Security, did Financial Regulation properly, etc) and thus made the dominant wing of the Democratic Party ultimately Liberal AND, because of the lack of ambiguity in that shift, presumably played a role in the almost semi-formal division of the party in 1937 by going farther left than Nance Garner was willing to tolerate. It all connects quite closely to the Supreme Court fight that year, also--no, it's just too big a historical shift to be mashed into a page headlined by the First New Deal. It'd be like combining Nixon's 1971 and (much different) 1974 Healthcare plans as one subject (only this is a much larger and more important pair of subjects, to be clear). -CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.248.77 ( talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on New Deal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
New Deal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Deal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but this article feels very long to read. It's a complicated and complex topic, but there is no need to tell the story in one giant article. -- Buffaboy talk 05:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
JUST A QUICK QUESTION. HOW DID THIS NEW SET OF IDEOLOGIES HELP MINORITIES DURING THIS TIME? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Culmitch (
talk •
contribs)
18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
In the article New Deal, the majority of the information in this article was relevant to the article topic and did not distract from the main point. For example, the article talks about the origins of the New Deal and how the New Deal was implemented. The article even evaluates all the New Deal policies Also, the article talked about the end goal of the New Deal and how that goal was going to be accomplished. Rather that being distracting the article draws the readers attention by talking about every aspect the New Deal had to offer.
Lokeo122 ( talk) 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Lokeo122
This article is incredibly well written and stays focused on the main points of the New Deal. Giving examples in each point, and expressing its meaning. This article has strong head sections, reliable sources, and is very well structured. RyanPresleyLong ( talk) 16:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)