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.

Franklin D rossevelt,FDR introduced socialism into the American thinking by taking advantage of America's desperation at the time. His calls for "change" were nothing more than code words for changing America's free enterprise system to one where the state controlled the economy. Many members of his braintrust were communist such as Alfred Heist who was later discoverd to have communist ties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

{{ editsemiprotected}}

Section 8.3.2

<snippage> He never warned Admiral Husband Kimmel or Lt. Gen. Walter Short after reception of the message before the Pearl Harbor attack.

While warning was sent to US Army and Naval Commanders in Hawaii, it was not received in time due to a bureaucratic error. The message was sent via Western Union Telegram to the West Coast and RCA Radio to Honolulu, it's contents in a cipher. This was the standard method of communicating with the Hawaiian Islands at the time when atmospheric conditions prevented direct communications, as was happening on that day. But the message was not marked with any urgent notations, so it was placed in the outgoing que and sent in order received. This was intentional on the part of the Generals in Washington, it was felt that any "urgent" message sent to the commanders in Hawaii might tip off Japanese spies on the West Coast. The plan was to alert the Army and Navy in Hawaii so they could lay a trap for the attacking Japanese. As it was, the message was received at Navy Headquarters from long after the attack had concluded.

From the record of the Congressional Hearing on Pearl Harbor

After receiving the message Colonel French personally took charge of its dispatch. Learning that the War Department radio had been out of contact with Honolulu since approximately 10:20 a. m. he hereupon immediately decided that the most expeditious manner of getting the message to Hawaii was by commercial facilities; that is, Western Union to San Francisco, thence by commercial radio to Honolulu. The message was filed at the Army signal center at 12:01 a. m. (6:31 a. m., Hawaii); teletype transmission to Western Union completed at 12:17 p. m. (6:47 a. m., Hawaii); received by RCA Honolulu 1:03 p. m. (7:33 a. m., Hawaii); received by signal office, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, at approximately 5:15 p. m. (11:45 a. m., Hawaii) after the attack. It appears that the teletype arrangement between RCA in Honolulu and Fort Shafter was not operating at the particular hour the message was received with the result that it was dispatched by a messenger on a bicycle who was diverted from completing delivery by the first bombing. Velovich ( talk) 05:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what do you want edited? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Requested edit unclear; no verifiable source provided.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FDR was elected 4 times not three (as it says in the first line of the article). Just needs to be corrected or explained. Perhaps the author of the passage was suggesting that since he only served 3 months of his 4th term, that the 4th term doesn't count, but he was elected 4 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.179.186 ( talk) 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course he was elected as President four times: 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. An editor made that erroneous change the day before and it has been reverted. JGHowes ^talk - 21:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Three years after his death, congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment, which states that no president will ever serve more then two terms. The Amendment was ratified four years later and placed in the US Constitution. Although it has been critized by many presidents since Roosevelt, congress states that it was put there for the consideration of the president's health. ( KdWiki ( talk) 15:26 11 June 2009 (UTC) Added by Keith Dancer, 08:25, 11 June 2009 (PST))

The 22nd Amendment doesn't control the number of terms a person may serve, only how many times they can be ELECTED. Should the United States ever desire another FDR, that person can campaign for the Vice Presidency on a promise that the President on their ticket will resign immediately. The same person can serve as President in perpetuity by being elected Vice Presdient in perpetuity and then, in every term, succeeding upon the instant resignation of the newly-elected President. There would be no breach of the 22nd Amendment at all. 69.86.126.190 ( talk) 21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

"Franklin Roosevelt is also related to several presidents by blood or marriage, including George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ulysses Grant, William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Zachary Taylor, and Martin Van Buren."

Was reading though and saw this and seriously doubting some are those are true. It under Personal Life.

67.52.248.218 ( talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed. It was added in July by a user with a less than stellar record. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Roosevelt is also recognized for playing himself in the movie "Annie" with actress Carol Burnett.

I believe that the phrase "Britain warred with Nazi Germany" is a violation of POV and leads the reader into a false sense that all Germans who fought in WWII were Nazis. I fixed the edit, but someone changed it back. Please tell me why?-- Jojhutton ( talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether all German soldiers were Nazis, Germany was a Nazi state which is what is being referred to in the sentence. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the meaning, it is ambiguous and can be misread, Especially by someone who may have very little knowledge on the topic. POV must take precedent in this case.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with the user who found that there is a POV problem in referring to Germany as "Nazi" Germany, but for a different reason. To label a nation state by its politics in order to differentiate it from the norm is highlighting that the author believes there to be a norm and a certain point when Germany changes over to "Nazi" Germany - and vice versa. This is a definite expression of the author's preference to differentiate the state at different times in its history - all be it an accepted one, at least in this present point in history when referencing Germany preceding and during World War Two. To analogize, it would be like referring to the 2003 war between the United States and Iraq as the invasion of Iraq by the "Republican" United States. Naturally, one could state differences in the analogy (e.g., the Nazi's held complete despotic power of the government - the Republicans were a democratically elected political power who tolerated the existence of opposing political parties that were elected, etc.); however, I think the analogy is good for expressing how unquestionably charged with a personal preference labeling the actions and title of state by the political party in control of that state's government can be. Therefore, to remove potential bias, the State of Germany should probably be referred to as such, without political labeling, unless specifically talking about the politics of the state.

Section 8.3.2

<snippage> He never warned Admiral Husband Kimmel or Lt. Gen. Walter Short after reception of the message before the Pearl Harbor attack.

While warning was sent to US Army and Naval Commanders in Hawaii, it was not received in time due to a bureaucratic error. The message was sent via Western Union Telegram to the West Coast and RCA Radio to Honolulu, it's contents in a cipher. This was the standard method of communicating with the Hawaiian Islands at the time when atmospheric conditions prevented direct communications, as was happening on that day. But the message was not marked with any urgent notations, so it was placed in the outgoing que and sent in order received. This was intentional on the part of the Generals in Washington, it was felt that any "urgent" message sent to the commanders in Hawaii might tip off Japanese spies on the West Coast. The plan was to alert the Army and Navy in Hawaii so they could lay a trap for the attacking Japanese. As it was, the message was received at Navy Headquarters from long after the attack had concluded.

From the record of the Congressional Hearing on Pearl Harbor ^[1]

After receiving the message Colonel French personally took charge of its dispatch. Learning that the War Department radio had been out of contact with Honolulu since approximately 10:20 a. m. he hereupon immediately decided that the most expeditious manner of getting the message to Hawaii was by commercial facilities; that is, Western Union to San Francisco, thence by commercial radio to Honolulu. The message was filed at the Army signal center at 12:01 a. m. (6:31 a. m., Hawaii); teletype transmission to Western Union completed at 12:17 p. m. (6:47 a. m., Hawaii); received by RCA Honolulu 1:03 p. m. (7:33 a. m., Hawaii); received by signal office, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, at approximately 5:15 p. m. (11:45 a. m., Hawaii) after the attack. It appears that the teletype arrangement between RCA in Honolulu and Fort Shafter was not operating at the particular hour the message was received with the result that it was dispatched by a messenger on a bicycle who was diverted from completing delivery by the first bombing.

Velovich ( talk) 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there absolutely no mention whatsoever of the various "FDR knew beforehand and let it happen to get us into the war" conspiracy theories? I'm not asking because I think there should be, but partly out of curiousity given how old and somewhat prevalent they are. I'm also asking because we're having a big debate over in the Patton article about including mentioning a book that claims the U.S. tried to assassinate Patton, and when that failed, "allowed" the Soviets to kill him. I'm hoping to use whatever precedent you use to keep the PH conspiracy theories out of here over there. :-) Fred8615 ( talk) 15:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that none of them proved any more than fringe theories. If anyone knows of some significant work that we can cite that will add to the article, please let us know. Padillah ( talk) 16:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Were I the final editor of the FDR entry to Wiki, I'd exclude the assorted conspiracy theories on the simple basis that they are unverifiable at best. Most of them, if not all, stem from poor scholarship on the part of the theorist. As with most conspiracy theories, a quick look at the available information will show the theory to be smoke and mirrors. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing - not knowing any better, in my own young adulthood, I once came across some information about the engines on a specific helicopter type. These engines were manufactured by General Electric. In my youth and exuberance, I took this to mean that the engines for this helicopter were *electric engines*. There was, of course, a different possibility, but I was simply blind to the idea that a company like General Electric making a gas turbine engine. Electric was in their name, therefore... Conspiracy theories are typically built the same way - on a foundation of a little information, no follow up, and a desire to "know something the rest of the world doesn't" - hubris. A *separate* page on FDR conspiracy theories would be a better place for such things - it gives them coverage, but away from the actual, verifiable history of FDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velovich ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not been able to find verification of a section of the article Fenway Park found at this link. I am able to verify that FDR gave his final campaign speech at the park in 1944, which is mentioned in the article introduction. However, numerous searches only state that the 1940 speech promising to keep troops home, as mentioned in the linked section, occurred in Boston but not specifically at Fenway Park. If a researcher involved with this article or the US Presidents project has information about the location of the 1940 speech, please respond here. Thanks in advance – Sswonk ( talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FDR also effectively banned marijuana in the United States (through the 1937 tax act), should that be covered in the article? Wandering Courier ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think this is more impactful to the Marijuana article (and maybe the 1937 Tax Act article) than as a mention here. Padillah ( talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, I suggest adding one or both of the following. The first is an executive order which FDR signed on April 27, 1942. Roosevelt: "In a message to the Congress on April 27, 1942, I stated: 'Discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high personal incomes should be lessened; and I therefore believe that in time of this grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.'" ^[2] Also, it might be helpful to include some of the following:

"FDR was a past master at the use of taxation to convey the image of the hour. He explained at one point that he would prefer 'to see a tax which would tax all income above $100,000 at the rate of 99.5%' This even shocked his budget director, but the president's joking comeback was a revealing one: 'Why not? None of us is ever going to make $100,000 a year. How many people report on that much income?' Roosevelt in fact went ever further than this. In 1942 and again in 1943, he proposed that all income above $25,000 ($50,000 for familes) be taxed away, saying that "all excess income should go to win the war. Inequities, he warned, 'seriously affect the morale of soldiers and sailors, farmers and workers, imperiling efforts to stabilize wages and prices, and thereby impairing the effective prosecution of the war.' When this income limit got nowhere in Congress, FDR acted on his own, handing down an executive order limiting after-tax salaries to $25,000 plus certain allowances, only to have his action indignantly repealed by Congress." ^[3]

One last honest idea, it might be helpful to make a note after the table of unemployment percentages for each year FDR was in office of the unemployment rate in 1931, which was 16.3% or 8.02 million unemployed. ^[4] This last peice might help tell the truth about how long it took FDR just to get the unemployment rate back down to what it was right before he took office, and that most of that was only due to the war, not his harmful economic policies.-- Triballiz ( talk) 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

An interesting detail wrt. early phases of WWII and U.S. stance to avoid selling war materiel to belligerent nations, is that Finland which was fighting against Soviet invasion in a conflict which was to become known as the Winter War, was allowed to purchase 55 Brewster Buffalo aircraft from U.S. Navy in December 1939. See Brewster_Buffalo#Finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.45.203 ( talk) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This bald statement is not true. Certainly, nearly all historians hold him in very high regard. But what about Lincoln? Or Washington? They've been considered "the greatest" several times. It would be accurate to say "one of the greatest". 129.120.177.129 ( talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noting that. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 00:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

He looks Italian to me. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryhead123 ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he was an American-born citizen, without any Italian "blood." FDR's father, James Roosevelt, and his mother, Sara, were each from wealthy old New York families, of Dutch and French ancestry respectively. NuclearWarfare _{( Talk)} 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the correct one? Image:ER FDR Campobello 1903.jpg in 1903, or 1905? 118.136.64.227 ( talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop referring to families as "old" please? All families are of equal age. When this article is next edited this problem should be attended to. It sounds snobbish and dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.241.31 ( talk) 03:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't his middle name delanor, not delano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.59.147 ( talk) 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of his wife, Eleanor. Delano was FDR's middle name. Unfree ( talk) 01:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say spanish style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.72.63 ( talk) 04:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

we had the only thing thats fears is fear itself - in WAC network in 1919 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.71.164 ( talk) 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

this could be used for illustration of the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roosevelt-statue-in-Oslo.JPG

and it could be explained what was the reason for the city to dedicate this monument to him. -- Stefanbcn ( talk) 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard in the movie Zeitgeist that FDR was related to like int'l bankers and such. Now I know Zeitgeist is not the most reliable of sources but if anybody else has any evidence, information on this topic post it here so we can contribute to this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.59.242 ( talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for pop culture conspiracy theories. -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On whitehouse.gov, it said that FDR was elected in november, and here it said he was elected in march. Is there a reason? -- Toad_rules ( talk) 00:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FDR was elected in November of 1932. Inaugurated March of 1933. THD3 ( talk) 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Real or not, the Business plot should be mentioned. A simple link in "related articles" is not enough...-- Desyman44 ( talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should include information of FDR's purposed 100% tax rate. He purposed a 100 percent top marginal tax rate. A few months after Pearl Harbor FDR stated that the nation was under “grave national danger,” and that because of this “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year." Roosevelt was proposing, in effect, what amounted to a maximum wage—at an income level that would equal, in our contemporary dollars, about $300,000.

I might be able to gather up some information this upcoming week and write something up... but I have no idea if there is a way to post it up to be edited for neutrality before being posted into the main article... post it in its entirety here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.202.175 ( talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this is going to be a very difficult undertaking for you as anything tagged with "100% Taxation Rate" or anything of the like is almost certainly going to be sensationalism and marred in the politics of today, but if multiple reliable sources can be found stating this than I can see no reason why it would not be added. Xenocide ^{Talk| Contributions} 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see multiple reliable sources that he "purposed" any legislation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Purposed" cannot be a typo for "proposed" in the posting from 69.65.202.175. Maybe if it were mis-typed only once. But it is spelled as "purposed" rigorously consistently throughout the posting. Obviously a tax on gasoline is frequently "purposed" for roads, to ensure that the burden of maintaining roads is borne by those who USE roads. What was the "purpose" for which FDR's 100% tax-rate would have been "purposed"? (And the idea of a 100% marginal tax-rate is right-wing hysteria anyway: even if it WERE true that the goal of all Democrats is to soak up as many tax-dollars from the economy as possible, it is mathematically impossible that any tax-scheme including a 100% marginal rate anywhere could achieve that goal of maximizing total tax collections.) 69.86.126.190 ( talk) 21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Shouldn't the article point out that he was the only President elected to three terms, too? A sentence like "the only President elected to more than two terms", perhaps. All Hallow's ( talk) 06:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. → Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got something. My edit summary was supposed to read "We'll see if this is well received." superluser _{t c} 2009 October 07, 07:59 (UTC)

The "more than two terms" formulation is the best one. But "only ... elected to four terms" is neither incorrect nor deficient. It's not possible to be elected to four terms unless one is elected to a first, then a second, then a third term, first. -- JackofOz ( talk) 08:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is insufficient, because it leaves the possibility that someone else could have been elected to three. → Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it reads "a four term president and the only U.S. President elected to more than two terms", and that seems just about perfect. → Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Should it metion also that he didn't actually serve 4 full terms? He died about halfway through his 4th... -- 173.171.164.68 ( talk) 12:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He actually died only a few months into his 4th term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.219.134 ( talk) 13:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

His fourth term ran something like 83 days. The article mentions that he died. He was elected to four terms, although if it was known how ill he was, things might have gone differently. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a featured article, shouldn't it have the star on it? Please excuse me if I'm wrong. Connormah ( talk) 01:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I plan to remove in a few days the assertion: "However, without access to FDR's detailed medical records—which are, by all reports, unaccounted-for [33]-- it is impossible to be certain of that premise", and the reference it cites, the book "Conspiracy of Silence". The reference does not support the assertion. I read the book. It only very briefly mentions FDR's paralytic illness, and nothing about the cause of the illness. The book does document a lack of detailed medical records concerning FDR's later health, but does not discuss earlier records. There are adequate medical records concerning FDR's paralytic illness, as cited in the Journal of Medical Biography article. The reason it is impossible to know for sure the cause of the paralytic illness is simply that a spinal fluid exam was not done, as stated in the separate article on FDR's illness. For some strange reason, the link to the separate article was also removed. I'll clean that up too. Anyone who objects can discuss here. DG 174.21.117.215 ( talk) 03:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as the section continues to maintain that there is no certainly whether FDR's illness was Polio or Gullian-Barre, I have no problems with your change. THD3 ( talk) 12:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I did the changes, and added a sentence to make it clearer that there is no certainty. DG 97.126.86.50 ( talk) 04:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is preposterous! Everybody knows FDR had polio. Unfree ( talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the reason that everbody knows that FDR had polio is that everbody knows that everbody knows it, then nobody knows it. IF it is true (and I don't know whether it is or isn't) that the only way to be absolutely sure that the disease that paralyzed FDR was polio was via spinal fluid, and no spinal fluid was ever tested, then what basis can there be for knowing that FDR was paralyzed by polio instead of something else? "Everybody says so" isn't EVIDENCE. When somebody has or had an illness of consequences, their contemporaries use a word to refer to WHATEVER illness it was that caused those consequences. In FDR's case that word was "polio". That doesn't mean that the illness has been MEDICALLY identified as polio. For instance, my father obviously had AN illness, and his contemporaries used, in common, the noun "ankylosing spondylitis" to refer to whatever illness that was. But in fact it was NOT ankylosing spondylitis, and historians who would use Dad's contemporaries's words to say that it was ankylosing spondylitis would err in reasoning. 69.86.126.190 ( talk) 21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

There needs to be balance in the civil rights section in this article! Thousands of Germans, Italians, and Japanese, as a class of people, were arrested under the authority of FDR. Also, FDR, ignored African Americans for most of his presidency and favored racist unions. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)}

This statement does not have a source and appears to be speculation. It can be argued that the many Catholic Italian Americans, whom Roosevelt refered to as "opera singers" ^[5] who were arrested by the President did not consider Roosevelt a hero. African Americans could be lynched in the South and Roosevelt made no effort to stop the lynching. The Jews were denied assylum when attempting to escape the holocost. This statement should and needs to be removed.( Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

He was a hero to large minority groups, especially African-Americans, Catholics, and Jews. African-Americans and Native Americans fared well in the New Deal relief programs...{ Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)}

I looked at both sources for the statement and there is nothing in both articles I can find that states Roosevelt was a hero to Jews, Catholics, and African-Americans. It only talks about party affiliations.{{ Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)}}

There is nothing in those sources that says FDR was a hero to minority groups. The statement is based on opinion, rather than fact. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)}

Charging Roosevelt as racist because he did not encourage legislators to introduce anti-lynching laws means every president before him was also racist for lacking to do the same, and should be noted in their articles if it is to be here. Roosevelt decried the act, but the President does not have any control in what legislation gets purposed or passed. That is the job of the Congress. You would have a better argument had such legislation passed, but was vetoed by Roosevelt. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Coat of Arms" section is interesting to those of us interested in heraldry, but it seems rather trivial given the scope of the subject's life. The elaborate illustration doesn't depict the actual arms and crest shown in the source: "The Arms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt", from the "American Heraldry Society". If we could obtain a free-use drawing then we might put it somewhere, or mention that Roosevelt used it as a personal badge and on gifts. However an entire section devoted to this obscure detail seems excessive. The link would be more helpful as an entry in "further reading" because it is such a specialized topic. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that there is Roosevelt Coat of Arms, as well as Theodore Roosevelt#Coat of Arms. Perhaps the material from both articles would be better places in that central article. Both this section and that use the same article as their single reference.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Roosevelt family#Coat of Arms. Roosevelt Coat of Arms is at AFD, so perhaps all of this should be moved to that article.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Roosevelt was actually quite fond of his coat of arms, and should be at least noted. I moved the section to just the smaller infobox with the bare details of the arms, but was unsure where to place that box. It is currently towards the top, but if there is a better place for it, please move it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it confusing that the arms are attributed to the 17th century. They can't be FDR's actual PERSONAL coat of arms but are more likely those of his ancestor or, even more likely, of his "family" in general (that being the pervasive as-yet-undebunked American urban legend as to heraldry). A helmet with crest is included, implying that FDR was awarded a knighthood of some type (or inherited a hereditary type of knighthood). If that is so then please list his knghthoods somewhere. It wouldn't be unusual: Ike (Order of the Bath Grand Cross) and Colin Powell, other Americans, have received knighthoods. 69.86.126.190 ( talk) 21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I was surprised to see a discussion of FDR's limousine, but no mention of his presidential motor launch, which I once operated for a summer at the Indian Harbor Yacht Club in Greenwich, CT. It was made of varnished teak, with much brass hardware, and was a joy to operate. Unfree ( talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My father advised Franklin and Eleanor to go to Maxwell Maltz for plastic surgery, which they did. They must have retired from the public spotlight to recover, probably at Hyde Park or Bernard Baruch's estate in South Carolina. Unfree ( talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While I have no doubt that FDR was racist (an awful lot of people are/were), and he should certainly be called out on it, I have to wonder about this one paragraph from the "Civil Rights" section:

In terms of the New Deal, economic and regulatory policies favored White Americans and placed hardships over African Americans. The New Deal threw African Americans out of work, raised the price of food during the depths of the Depression, and granted monopoly bargaining powers to racist unions.[114] According to one historian, Jim Powell, "Black people were among the major victims of the New Deal."

A quick perusal of the internets finds most of these claims made largely on conservative blogs and such by people who are ideologically opposed to the New Deal. Therefore, I'm wondering about the veracity of the statements, and it comes off as anti-New Deal propaganda, trying to equate social welfare programs of various sorts with racism. It all seems an attempt to simultaneously demonise FDR, any sort of social support net, and trade unions. The assertions in the first two sentences are stated as if it were uncontestable fact. Even if there is a grain of truth to some of the claims, no mention is made of the right-wing credentials of those making the claims: Jim Powell, for example, is simply identified as "one historian", without noting that he is an ideologue affiliated with the Cato Institute; the earlier assertions are left uncredited.

I think the partisan and likely unsubstantiated nature of the paragraph as well as its ideologic origin would justify alterations to make those ideologic origins clearer, and possibly striking the paragraph altogether, though I didn't want to make the edit without input. NPOV doesn't mean just letting any partisan statements stand.

Interestingly, the page on "Franklin D. Roosevelt's record on civil rights" doesn't currently assert these claims. 99.135.74.9 ( talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)s

I also have issue with that portion about the New Deal affecting blacks negatively more so than whites. I fail to see how higher food prices would only harm black families, because it seems logical that higher food prices would have a negative affect on any poor family regardless of race. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt's wik article has a pronuncation guide. Why isn't there one for FDR? Kdammers ( talk) 10:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the Dorothea Lange photo from this section. While it is appropriate for an article on Japanese-American internment, it does not belong in this biography article. THD3 ( talk) 13:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. However, you can choose not to put the photo in this article. I disagree because Japanese-American internment was part of FDR's bio, just as much as the Deppression and WWII. { Cmguy777 ( talk) 07:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)}

I also disagree and have restored it. It is very appropriate for that section. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original comment. That phote would be great in the interment article. By the above logic we'd have to post pictures of bloody Iraqis on George Bush's page... Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there is a whole section of that size dealing with Iraqis on the Bush article ;-) No, that's your logic. The original deletion wasn't a consensus decision and the argument used didn't have any backing in Wikipedia policy. This image is a very sober image that fits nicely with the whole section. Of course it would ALSO be good in the internment article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I only happen to be here because I added the section below, however I do agree that this picture is not appropriate for this page. I did look at another president's page - Johnson. When I think of Johnson my first two thoughts are civil rights and war protests, and even still there were no pictures of either. To include this picture here suggests a weight that it really does not have. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Now we're talking! "Weight" is a legitimate argument to use. The other one related to not wanting to picture "bloody" (in this case Japanese) didn't cut it at all, on the contrary. Now as to weight, it applies to article content, which includes images. Right now we have a large section dealing with the subject, which is why the image is located there. Do you think the section gives too much weight to the subject? I'm not implying that just because an article has a section that it must be illustrated. This article is different than others in several ways: it's very large, and nearly every section is illustrated, including some that are smaller than this section! The parent fork article for that section uses a different image. My initial reasoning was that the initial removal was against consensus, and no good arguments based on policy, rather than racism, had been proferred that justified removing it in the first place or again. Yours is the first that comes close, so I'm open for discussion. Say more.... -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there are some misunderstandings going on here... I'm unsure where you see racism. I understood HIAB to mean that the Iraq war connected to GWB would warrant a picture of dead Iraqis if FDR warranted a picture of interred Japanese. I don't see the length of the article or the fact that the other sections have pictures to have any bearing on the picture in this section. On the other hand, this picture may fit with the other article you mention. It just does not seem significant enough to fit into this one, IMO. BTW, as long as we have several together here, I'm going to remove this reference to "Japs": FDR is quoted as saying, "In the days to come, I won’t trust the Japs around the corner", referring to Japanese residing inside the United States.[119] It was taken from here:

Until his end, FDR scarcely spoke out in praise of the patriotism of most Japanese Americans or the valor of Nisei who volunteered to fight for their nation on European battlefields. "In the days to come," he told audiences, "I won’t trust the Japs around the corner." As Robinson notes, many of FDR’s supporters drew little distinction between "Japs" and Japanese Americans – but, then, neither did Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I don't feel that FDR was referring to Japanese Americans here, at any rate it is not clear. Any thoughts on that? Gandydancer ( talk) 04:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's properly sourced, then that move sounds like historical revisionism. We don't do that here. We don't whitewash subjects. That's part of history, not just for FDR, but for most Americans for a couple generations after the war, and it applied to Germans as well. They were also held in low regard in all of Europe and America. They still are among the older generation. There is no need to remove it just because it doesn't sound nice. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

First, I was not suggesting that the sentence "I won't trust the Japs around the corner" should be removed because it does not sound "nice". My thought was that FDR was, or could have been, referring to the "Japs" we were at war with. That said, I have looked at quite a few articles and I have changed my mind about the picture. Even though the internment of the Japanese in this country may not generally be something that comes to mind when thinking about FDR, this did eventually become quite an important issue when years later an official apology was made. My mind is still open to discussion, but at this point I would agree that it is appropriate.

As for the second issue that I brought up, further reading has changed my mind on that as well. A picture at one article showed the front page headline from when the internment order was issued and it used the word "Japs". I would still like to remove the words "referring to Japanese residing inside the United States" as that is not from the source but rather a wording from a Wikipedia editor. Gandydancer ( talk) 14:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on the image placement issue. The context of the section seems to justify it. As to the statement about not trusting the "Japs" (I was born in Japan to American missionary parents), the additional qualifiers do seem like editorializing, although understandable. The context seems to imply it, and I know the mentality did too. Keep in mind that at the time pretty much all ordinary Americans in all walks of life commonly and publicly used racially charged negative expressions in everyday speech and writing. In my home (a preacher's home) the word nigger wasn't allowed, but it was commonly used, along with "Japs" and "Krauts" in school and society at large. This was during the 1960s. Not until some time after the 60's and 70's civil rights movement thinking had begun to permeate American society did it become politically incorrect to use those terms. In that regard, our family was far ahead of the rest of society, largely because of Christian ideals and a family background accustomed to relating to other races in missionary work. Only my mother was born in the USA. We grew up with other cultures and learned to relate to them. We knew that no one was superior to or better than others. Yes, there were significant differences in many ways, but no one inherently had more "rights" than another. We needed to learn to get along. If I have any religion, it's one of tolerance.

America, in common with many other nations, has struggled with how to deal with and integrate various non-European cultures and races, and the old European immigrants to the USA retained their racist ideas for a long time. They came from backgrounds where European thinking justified colonization, slavery, displacement of native peoples, stealing their lands and national riches, and generally thinking they were superior and had a right to own the earth. They brought that thinking with them when they came to America. In fact, those ideas are definitely not dead yet among those of European descent. Human nature doesn't relinguish old prejudices very fast. I see the election of Obama as a real breakthrough in the area of civil rights and American thinking. For the first time it was proven that the ideals of equality Americans claim to hold were really working to the nth degree, even touching the presidency. It does reveal a paradigm shift is succeeding, but it's made difficult by the fact that the older generation still has significant power in politics. The article from which the quote is taken discusses ideas about racial inferiority and genetics that were common during that time and in FDR's thinking, and there are still people who believe that stuff, and that thinking slows progress in bringing people together. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting life experience information. I hope to reply when time permits, but for now I have only time to fix the spelling from my post--funny how often I don't see it till I read it at a later time. Gandydancer ( talk) 17:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The image I support removing, as it does not adequately illustrate the situation. I do not think that one needs to illustrate what a Japanese American looks like. It is just an family with tags on them, for the camp presumably, but nothing much to do with the actual camps themselves. Is there not an image available that portrays the actual camps? If the image is kept, it should be made smaller to conform with the rest of the images on the page. Right now it appears to be the largest one in the article and that gives it undue weight.

As for the quote, while it is not our job to add and delete information based on what puts a man in good light, it is our job to make sure the original connotation is kept. The term "Jap" was not yet a derogatory word, and became one only in the years after World War II because of the ill-feelings brought on by the Pacific theatre of the war coupled with the memory of Pearl Harbour. Roosevelt had died by that time, and can not be held accountable to a modern standard that was not existent in his time. Also, to say he scarcely spoke of praise of Japanese American patriotism still means he did speak praise of them. That seems a rather odd judgment call to say Roosevelt gave praise X-many times, but is racist because he did not give praise Y-many times. So it is disingenuous to provide the quote in a manner that hints of racism and should be removed. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. You look at the picture and think: "It is just a family with tags on them...". And when I look at the picture I think, "It's a family with tags on them!". That is the issue here, people, not a picture of a camp. As for your thoughts about the term Jap, that is not really the issue here. It is the statement, ""In the days to come, I won’t trust the Japs around the corner". Though I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, in that at the time it would not have been considered racist. I'd be glad to see the sentence removed completely. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are tags, but that is nothing more than paper on string. Our soldiers wear tags, fast-food restaurant staff wear tags, people wear tags to those informal business meetings where you have to pretend everyone is funnier than they are and so on. It is hardly a civil rights violation considering how common tags really are, and the family looks a bit bored and the father seems to be grinning even. An image of American soldiers keeping American citizens behind fences on American soil would be more visually descriptive. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 22:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything helpful to this discussion in Xander's post.

I have again read the book review of Robinson's book on FDR. I have googled the author of the review (Ponte) and found the following comments of his from an article written about Ponte:

After McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate, Ponte swooped to her defense in his Sept. 2 column by devising a bizarre theory to portray the media is racist:

[Sarah Palin's] husband, the liberal media reported, back in the 1980s got a ticket for driving “under the influence.”

This seemingly trivial story is actually the opening wedge of a multi-pronged orchestrated left-wing attack designed to appeal to the racism that has always been at the heart of the Democratic Party.

Palin’s husband, you see, is part Native American. His ancestors include Inuits, i.e., Eskimos. But if this fact enters the news untinted by left-wing bias, it would show Gov. Palin to be inclusive, non-racist, and noble — qualities the media intends to prevent voters from seeing.

The liberal media is therefore falsely implying that Palin’s husband is alcoholic, and from there it will echo those left-wing blogs who paint him with the “drunken Indian” racist stereotype long promoted by Democrats. http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=lowell+ponte&d=5002142304370873&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=ee9f8ae8,da16449

Since we are using his review of Robinson's book about FDR and not the actual book, and given the fact that he, in my opinion, has a strong bias, I am going to delete the sentence that uses his reference. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove the whole quote? It was only the last part, which was editorializing that should be removed. Please restore the quote itself. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I explained my reasoning. See this as well from another site:

In a June 30 column, Ponte claimed that retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter, "viciously attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s military credentials." Ponte repeated Clark's statement that "I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president" without providing the context in which he said it -- that Clark was specifically responding to CBS "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer's statement that unlike McCain, Obama has not "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down". Please read more on Ponte here: http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2008/ponte.html Gandydancer ( talk) 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

???? It appears you're referring to another subject quoting other people. I'm talking about the editorializing after the actual quote. The quote was sourced properly and should remain. We were agreed the editorializing should go. I'll go ahead and fix it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the point is that the cited author, Ponte, has been found to take quotes out of context in the past, and that no pertinent context is provided for the quote in the article. Such as a date. Or a mention that the term Jap became derogatory years after Roosevelt's death. At the time, using Jap was similar to using Brit, and meant nothing racist or derogatory. It is inappropriate to use the quote in a manner that implies racism without providing the supporting context that shows such. Supporting context which Ponte does not include. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Zander. I have not changed my mind, but had put this on the back burner. Again, here is the quote from Ponte's book review:

Until his end, FDR scarcely spoke out in praise of the patriotism of most Japanese Americans or the valor of Nisei who volunteered to fight for their nation on European battlefields. "In the days to come," he told audiences, "I won’t trust the Japs around the corner." As Robinson notes, many of FDR’s supporters drew little distinction between "Japs" and Japanese Americans – but, then, neither did Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (22)

Now, we have no way of knowing whether Roosevelt was speaking of Japanese Americans or the Japanese we were at war with. If it was the enemy "Japs", that would not be considered racist in time of war (back then). In fact, Ponte goes on to comment, "As Robinson notes, many of FDR’s supporters drew little distinction between "Japs" and Japanese Americans – but, then, neither did Franklin Delano Roosevelt", which to me suggests that Ponte had nothing to back up his contention that Roosevelt was speaking of Japanese Americans, it was just his notion. And we know from the two sources that I have provided, Ponte is not always "careful" about the manner in which he reports his version of the news. I will again delete the Ponte addition. If Brangifer can find a better reference, a reference from the book rather than a possibly slanted review of the book, perhaps it would be acceptable. Gandydancer ( talk) 12:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I have not read Ponte's writing. But I've read about every other book on FDR over the last thirty years and I've never seen this quote, about "Japs around the corner." Nor have I heard these words in either his secret Oval Office recordings, Fireside Chats, or speeches in public, nor have I seen them in any transcripts. FDR definitely used the word Jap (so did Eleanor), and it was largely in the context of abbreviation, not racism. Unless we can find other, more reliable, sourcing the "Japs around the corner" quote should not be in the article. THD3 ( talk) 13:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Information here: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/fdr_kept_deadly_disease_hidden_for_5EQDNU3uhriRo1HQRdmTrN Gandydancer ( talk) 16:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should depend on this one source alone. The author of the article is discussing his book, and we need to know from other sources whether his information is correct. We need more and better sourcing for that. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note, I did not suggest that it be added, and of course this source would not be adequate. Is there a problem with placing this sort of information on the talk page? Gandydancer ( talk) 20:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it can't be discussed here. This isn't a WP:BLP, so there's no problem. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The source cites no medical records and goes against Roosevelt's personal doctors. It seems to be nothing more than speculation that is admitted to be based on photographs alone. Even if he indeed had the melanoma, that does not mean it killed him. I would suggest keeping with the medical opinion of his physicians rather than conjecture of a journalist 65 years after the fact. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The book in question, FDR's Deadly Secret, is being released today. I have it on order from my local library and will report on what it contains. The preface, which is already available for reading online, contains two notable errors: It refers to his final message before Congress in 1945 and states that FDR stumbled over the text, and that he had never done so before. Not true. While a great orator, FDR sometimes deviated from the prined text of his speeches, usually on purpose, sometimes by accident. His first recorded speech, from 1920, has at least two such errors. The preface also states that FDR, in the 1945 speech, can be observed using his finger to trace his text (true) and that he had never done so before (not true, FDR can be seen using this method at least as early as in a 1938 Fireside Chat). The hypothesis is that the above occured because a brain tumor was affecting FDR's eyesight. But based on their evidence, FDR would have had a tumor for seven years, which is totally unprovable. THD3 ( talk) 14:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times has published a review of the book: [1] . THD3 ( talk) 13:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Franklin Roosevelt article uses the term "Agricultural Adjustment Administration" several times. This is incorrect; it should read "Agricultural Adjustment Act." Thank you. Rdennist ( talk) 08:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)2/10/10

Go ahead and fix it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the section in his Limo really necessary? I would understand an article on Presidential transportation, but as it is, the information in this article is largely duplicated in the Sunshine Special article. On top of which, there is nothing in this article about FDR's personal car, with its ingenius hand controls. THD3 ( talk) 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a brief mention of FDR's personal hand operated car. THD3 ( talk) 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that it does not deserve its own section. It was a car used during Roosevelt's presidency, but nothing of great importance. A mention somewhere else in the article and a link would seem to suffice. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the limousine section of this article be merged with Presidential_State_Car_(United_States). THD3 ( talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. While the content is interesting, it gets far too much space in this biography.   Will Beback  talk  15:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Add to that is that the content in the FDR article duplicates the content on the Sunshine_Special_Presidential_State_Car_(United_States) page nearly verbatim. In any case, I have deleted the information and added a link to the separate page. THD3 ( talk) 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're having a mini-epidemic of vandalism from anonymous users. Maybe we need to semi-protect the page for a while? THD3 ( talk) 16:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.212.158.14 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are several reasons your verbiage is unacceptable. First, it's self-promotion of your book, which is against the rules. Second, it's verbiage likely lifted straight from your book, which may be fine there, but is written in an "editorial" style that's not suitable to an encyclopedia. Third, it's original research, it's little-known (as you yourself said) and it's undue weight. Don't add it again or we'll have to meet at the WP:ANI corral. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get far in U.S. Navy if you go in talking shit about F.D.R.: he's the Navy logos.

98.230.60.95 ( talk) 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Arkhamite

Someone reverted my edit of a "citation needed" tag for the pronunciation. This may seem quibbling, but I frequently hear "rue" (v. and n.) -se velt. (Don't know the schwa code.) A citation for the pronunciation does not seem out of bounds, even though I agree with the stated vowel values. 173.21.106.137 ( talk) 10:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

FDR was inaugurated four times. In each case, he was recorded taking the oath of office, and on each occasion he pronounced his last name ROE-zə-velt. Clips are available on youtube and various documentaries. THD3 ( talk) 12:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, for example: [2] It sounds more like ROE-zə-vəlt. In fact, that's the pronunciation given for FDR in my Webster's, where it points out, "this is how Roosevelt pronounced it." Other members of the family appear to have pronounced it slightly differently. But definitely ROSE, not RUSE. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I thank the contributors. As I stated, I never disagreed with the quoted vowel values. I am glad verification was so readily available. Thank you for improving Wikipedia rather than deleting specifications requested by the public (for whom, and generally by whom, Wikipedia is run). 173.21.106.137 ( talk) 10:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"leading the United States during a time of worldwide economic crisis and world war. The only American president elected to more than two terms, he forged a durable coalition that realigned American politics for decades. FDR defeated incumbent Republican Herbert Hoover in November 1932, at the depths of the Great Depression. FDR's combination of optimism and activism revived the national spirit. He led the United States through World War II, dying at the start of his fourth term just as victory was near over Germany and Japan."

Revived spirit? Optimism and activism? Led the US?(Led to where?) Such language might be appropriate on ilovefdr.com but not on a neutral encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WMCHEST ( talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the NPOV tag on this article. After looking the article over, it seems to me that the tag is basically frivolous. There may be minor problems with the language here or there, but the article is in general neutrally worded and well sourced; no significant problems in evidence to justify the tag, hence I am removing it. Nsk92 ( talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nsk92. Sunray ( talk) 15:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with Nsk92. the article reflects the range of viewpoints in the RS. I think all RS agree that the national spirit was better in April 1945 than March 1933. Rjensen ( talk) 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with Nsk2, Rjensen, and Sunray. Article includes more than adequate coverage of criticism of FDR and his policies. If memory serves, tt has also been rated as an "A-class" article, which is about as good as it gets. THD3 ( talk) 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New material

In 1999, Harry Goldsmith, MD, a well-respected surgeon from Dartmouth Medical College, published an article ^[6], and somewhat later a book ^[7], postulating that a pigmented cutaneous lesion clearly visible over FDR's left eyebrow was in fact a melanoma, a malignant skin tumor. Examination of photographs taken over the first 8 years of Roosevelt's presidency clearly demonstrates steady growth of this lesion, followed by its unexplained disappearance, and replacement by an apparent surgical scar, in approximately 1940. ^[8] Notably, this pigmented lesion was carefully retouched out of all official presidential portrait photographs taken during that period. ^[9] Melanoma is an aggressive malignancy with dangerous metastatic potential; treatment options (then as now) are very limited beyond surgical excision, particularly after metastasis has occurred. Metastatic melanoma, Goldman contended, compounded by multiple serious cardiovascular problems, could have been the true cause of FDR's death. ^[10] Central to this theory was Goldman's documentation of lectures and conversations given by George T. Pack, MD, a renown cancer surgeon and head of the melanoma service at Memorial Sloane-Kettering Hospital in New York City, who stated unequivocally that his colleague Frank Lahey, MD had seen FDR in consultation at the Lahey Clinic in 1944, determined that the president had advanced metastatic cancer, and advised him not to pursue a fourth term. ^[11]

Howard Bruenn, MD, Roosevelt's last surviving personal physician, who had, several years before, published a summary of FDR's medical history which made no mention of cancer, ^[12] denied in a series of interviews after Goldsmith's paper was published that FDR ever had cancer. However, he presented no evidence to refute Goldsmith's conclusions, and he was unable to explain the mysterious disappearance of the pigmented lesion. ^[13]

In 2009, a physician and a journalist published FDR's Deadly Secret, ^[14] an assemblage of surviving medical records, independent medical evidence, and eyewitness reports, including new information from the diaries of Margaret Suckley, ^[15] Roosevelt's distant cousin, frequent companion, and confidante, which collectively (albeit circumstantially) support Goldsmith's conclusions.

It is very likely that this issue will every be resolved with absolute certainty. An autopsy, inexplicably, was performed. Roosevelt's voluminous personal medical records disappeared after his death, and except for a few laboratory slips, found in 1957, remain missing. There are no known surgical pathology specimens, nor any other incontrovertible medical evidence. All of FDR's physicians and other primary caretakers are deceased. The opinions of historians and other scholars continue to vary widely. Even Harry Goldsmith, the physician whose 1979 paper raised the question in the first place, recently admitted that he is not convinced metastatic cancer killed Roosevelt. ^[16]

References

Discussion

I've moved this new section here for discussion. The main reference appears to be to a self-published book written by the proponent of this theory. Aside from the one NYT article, it doesn't sound like this theory has received wider attention. If we decide to mention it I think a much shorter discussion of it, perhaps a sentence, would be sufficient. Other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was fast. The information added is well-referenced, covers both sides of the controversy, does not violate any copyrights, and is true -- so why was it deleted, unilaterally, in a matter of hours? I'm not sure which of the several references cited is the "main reference", but none of them is "self-published" -- and I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in either side of this controversy. But as a dermatologist, I have examined the scientific evidence, and it is compelling enough to require mention by any serious reference. The theory has received wide attention in the medical community -- I already offered to provide further references on request. J. Eastern, MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorJoeE ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than go into a discussion about WP:Verifiability, I will just quote from my own review of FDR's Secret:

FDR’s Deadly Secret is a mistake ridden mish-mash of speculation along with a bit of new information. Upon reading the book, I immediately spotted an error to the effect that Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 acceptance speech (which was delivered via radio while he was aboard a train) was the first time he had not appeared at the Democratic National Convention to accept the nomination personally. Not true. He accepted the 1940 nomination via an address from the White House. (By the way, it was FDR who began the tradition of the nominee accepting his nomination at the convention.)

The thesis of the book is that Roosevelt was in much worse shape for longer in his presidency than has ever been revealed publicly. This has been raised in the media before. In 1979, a doctor named Harry Goldsmith postulated that FDR may have had malignant melanoma. This is based on photographs of FDR showing a dark spot over his left eye that appeared in the late-1920s, slowly grew, then mysteriously disappeared in 1942. The authors pick up on this, further theorizing that, by the time of his death, FDR's (unproven) melanoma had metastasized into stomach and brain cancer. The authors state that it was stomach cancer which caused FDR's weight loss in 1944, and that several incidents when the President seemed "out of it" were seizures caused by brain cancer.

The book's preface is illustrative of the flaws in the authors' work. It recounts FDR's address to the Congress after his return from the Yalta conference in 1945. There were a large number of verbal stumbles in that speech. The authors state that, based on the location of the text in his reading copy of the speech, FDR was having trouble with visual acuity in his left eye. Further, they state that FDR was using his hand to mark his place on the page while reading, and that he had never done so before. This latter statement is demonstrably NOT TRUE. There are newsreels of FDR as early as 1938 showing him using this method, and it increases as the years pass. Could it simply be that FDR's eyesight, as was common in older men, was beginning to fail, and he may have developed an astigmatism? There is no record of FDR's glasses prescription ever being changed during his presidency - and this would easily account for such troubles.

The authors speculate on several instances in the last year of his life when FDR seemed to briefly lose his mental grasp, only to recover a few minutes later. They claim that the President was suffering from seizures. But anyone who has seen someone having a brain seizure knows this is not the usual way it presents itself. It has been speculated elsewhere that FDR was suffering from Transient Ischemic Attacks, sometimes called "mini-strokes" and this seems the more likely cause.

As to FDR's weight loss, it has been documented as having been deliberate. FDR preferred to keep his weight at 175#, which would be an acceptable weight for a 6'2" paralytic. Due to the doubly sedentary nature of being paralyzed and working behind a desk, his weight fluctuated throughout his presidency, and by the end of 1943, he was nearly obese. It was on the recommendation of his doctors that FDR lose weight to reduce the strain on his heart. The authors trot out several figures for how much FDR weighed at various points, with no documentation to support them. One can only surmise that they are "guesstimating" based on photographs.

Perhaps most troubling is the attitude the authors take toward Howard Bruenn, the cardiologist who examined FDR in early 1944 and diagnosed his cardiac failure. This book is a reckless slap at his memory, accusing Bruenn, who arguably kept the President alive several additional months, of falsifying his accounts of his time with the President. If any physician made such a remark in public about another living doctor, he would likely get booted out of the AMA. But Bruenn died in 1995, so he must be a safe target.

The book also relies on some highly suspect accounts, such as those by Walter Trohan, a scandalmonger for the fiercely anti-FDR Chicago Tribune (the newspaper which published the infamous Dewey Defeats Truman headline).

Finally, the authors fail to clearly delineate between the reporting of fact and their own speculations - several times repeating the cancer thesis as if it were a fact.

Speculation about FDR's health has surrounded him ever since he ran for Governor of New York in 1928. There were rumors that his paralysis was caused by syphilis. In 2003, a peer-reviewed study concluded that his paralysis was most likely caused by Guillain-Barré syndrome, not Polio (and certainly not syphilis).

No doubt, the controversy surrounding FDR's health and his fitness for office in the last 16 months of his presidency remains some 65 years after his death. Many worthy books have been written which address his physical health and state of mind during that period. This isn't one of them. THD3 ( talk) 12:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read that review, which is posted on Amazon.com, and we can discuss it in a more appropriate venue if you wish. (I'm interested, for example, in why you think doctors are forbidden to make remarks about each other, and why doing so would "likely get [him] booted out of the AMA" - which very few doctors belong to anymore anyway.) And I have my own issues with that particular book. But, of course, our personal opinions of one of the cited references is irrelevant to this discussion. And I understand the natural tendency to push back when new data is presented which contradicts our cherished lifelong beliefs. But the fact remains that this controversy exists; the evidence, while circumstantial, is strong; it is frequently discussed in both medical and historical circles; the summary I added clearly labeled it as a controversy, not a fact; the circumstances surrounding a president's death are of more than passing importance; and to ignore such a controversy completely, in an article that purports to be a comprehensive summary of FDR's life, diminishes the relevance of that article. DoctorJoeE ( talk) 14:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The material was well-written, my congratulations to DoctorJoeE. My concern is mostly over the amount of weight this obscure theory deserves in the biography of one of the great figures of the 20th century. Sentence, or even a paragraph, would seem more appropriate than a 440-word section.   Will Beback  talk  14:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that we only devote about 280 words to FDR's paralytic illness. A longer treatment is in a separate article, Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. I think that the material on the controversy over the cause of death should probably be much shorter and if it's notable enough then a separate article can cover the details.   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a case of WP:FRINGE, which would make zero words appropriate. ( Hohum  ^@) 20:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been through this almost exact same issue before. In the Patton article, someone insisted on including the then recently released book claiming Patton was murdered by the Soviets AFTER a failed attempt by our own government only resulted in his accident. The person insisted that since this ONE BOOK was published and reviewed, that was all that was needed to include mention of it. Now it looks like the same thing is happening here. My thoughts are same now as they were then: no one book, reviewed, debunked, or with any other type of public acknowledgement of its existence, deserves mention if it makes extraordinary claims that cannot be verified or disproved because evidence is "conveniently" missing or those involved are dead and cannot confirm or deny said claims. A link in a "See Also" section to an article about the book, if it exists, would be the most that should be done. Fred8615 ( talk) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the general consensus is to omit this entirely. WP:FRINGE is an applicable guideline.   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, omit. No need to link to it. Rjensen ( talk) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Omit. Seems a bit off that one photo provides the basis of a whole theory that developed decades after FDR's death, and one that would require FDR's personal physicians to be completely ignored. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the consensus I'll abide by it, of course; but for the record, ignoring controversy is not a way to get a demoted article back to "Featured" status. As for "ignoring" FDR's personal physicians, you have to remember that the first thing those physicians did after he died was destroy nearly all of his voluminous medical records. The second thing they did was make sure no autopsy would be performed on the President of the United States. And you're going to trust anything they say after that? What they said after that was trust us, he died of cardiovascular disease - when any first year medical student in the world will tell you that those Yalta Conference photos show a man with metastatic cancer - about as classic a presentation as you're ever likely to see. The controversy should be mentioned, at the very least. If you disagree with it, fine - but to completely ignore it? That's not encyclopedic. DoctorJoeE ( talk) 22:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was stumped by something this morning. I saw FDR on a recent list of Time Magazine's list of "Only Children That Changed The World". I checked here and it notes that FDR was an only child.

A very oft-repeated piece of trivia is that no US President was an only child. Is that piece of trivia wrong, or is there something missing in the commonly known FDR biography that isn't mentioned in the article, e.g. a step-sibling or an adopted sibling? -- PoughkeepsieNative ( talk) 12:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FDR was the only child of James and Sara Roosevelt. James had another son, James, Jr by a previous marriage to Rebecca Howland. The younger James was born 28 years before FDR and they didn't have much contact. So, FDR didn't have any full siblings, but he had a half-brother. THD3 ( talk) 12:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton in the same place. Only half brothers and sisters, since their fathers died before they were born, or did they have older siblings?-- Jojhutton ( talk) 22:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

{Correction) Ford's dad wasn't dead when he was born. I just looked it up.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 22:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

An article out today with some pertinent details:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29fdr.html

Dhollm ( talk) 06:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What did FDR exactly have to do with labor day and how its celebrated today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.65.174 ( talk) 04:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, that I'm aware of. If memory serves, the advent of Labor Day predated FDR's presidency by at least 50 years. DoctorJoeE ( talk) 05:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment . . . ; If it doesn't turn out right, we can modify it as we go along." — Franklin D.Roosevelt counseling Frances Perkins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 ( talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the map of FDR's foriegn trips Morocco is not shaded in despite his attending the Casablanca Conference, should this be changed or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.37.238 ( talk) 03:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize for this edit. I've been removing a spammed self-published source from several articles (books by Arnold Reisman), and I don't know how it happened exactly but I've inadvertently reverted to an older version on several of them, as well removing the spam I was looking for. I must have clicked on an older version by mistake when looking through the IPs contribs. Thank you to Rjensen for catching it, and I'm very sorry for the inconvenience. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 08:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin does a very good editing work for Wikipedia, for which we are all grateful. Rjensen ( talk) 11:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The "text book" version is that FDR was paralyzed by polio. Here, one article is cited challenging that idea. Is this truly a school of thought on the subject or just the speculation of one author? Johnfravolda ( talk) 18:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Guillian-Barre conclusion is the result of a peer reviewed study, not just the speculation of one author. (Indeed, five authors are listed on the cited source.) One could just as easily state that the diagnosis that FDR had polio was "just one doctor's opinion." The text as it currently stands is pretty clear that without examination of his cerebrospinal fluid, one cannot be certain what caused FDR's paralysis. THD3 ( talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

On the Franklin Delano Roosevelt page, in the area "Second Term, 1937-1941," a slight change should be made. On the page, it is stated that Roosevelt proposed a law allowing him to appoint 5 new justices. This is incorrect. Roosevelt wanted to appoint 6 new justices, not 5. Please change this. I have been looking through textbooks and websites, and they say this is the case.

173.77.145.51 ( talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see where that specific note is. Does someone know?-- Novus Orator 01:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt#Second term, 1937–1941, 2nd paragraph, middle of 3rd line (approx).

Might it have something yo do with how many justices met the criteria (>70½, >10 years service) at the time the bill was proposed? In any case, "up to six" might be better and more accurate... Fat&Happy ( talk) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do...-- Novus Orator 01:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"According to the Roosevelt family, Eleanor offered Franklin a divorce so that he could be with the woman he loved, but Lucy, being Catholic, could not bring herself to marry a divorced man with five children. " this is contradicted in the Eleanor Roosevelt article:

"Despite its happy start and Roosevelt's intense desire to be a loving and loved wife, their marriage almost disintegrated over Franklin's affair with his wife's social secretary Lucy Mercer (later Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd).[12] When Eleanor learned of the affair from Mercer's letters, which she discovered in Franklin's suitcases in September 1918, she was brought to despair and self-reproach. She told Franklin she would insist on a divorce if he did not immediately end the affair. He knew that a divorce would not reflect well on his family, so he ended the relationship. So implacable was Sara's opposition to divorce that she warned her son she would disinherit him. Corinne Robinson, and Louis McHenry Howe, Franklin's political advisors, were also influential in persuading Eleanor and Franklin to save the marriage for the sake of the children and Franklin's political career. The idea has been put forth that, because Mercer was a Catholic, she would never have married a divorced Protestant. Her relatives maintain that she was perfectly willing to marry Franklin. Her father's family was Episcopal and her mother had been divorced.[13] While Franklin agreed never to see Mercer again, she began visiting him in the 1930s and was with Franklin at Warm Springs, Georgia when he died on April 12, 1945.[14]"

This should be researched and re-aligned. Nem ( talk) 09:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree with the fact that he knew nothing about the Pearl Harbor attacks. He wanted them so we would be in the war. 69.247.188.19 ( talk) 02:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And while you are welcome to that opinion, in order to include it in the article, you need a reliable source. If you have one, please post the citation/link here so that we can consider it. Qwyrxian ( talk) 03:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to above - Read Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett and World War II by Richard Mayberry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.188.19 ( talk) 03:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the page for Day of Deceit, you'll see that Stinnett's conclusions are generally rejected by historians, so his conclusions probably shouldn't be listed here (per WP:FRINGE). I can't find any author named Richard Mayberry, either here or at Amazon. There was a WWII aviator named Richard Maybery, but he doesn't seem to have published anything; there is a Richard Maybury who wrote a book called World War II: The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today, 1930 to September 11, 2001, but Maybury is mostly known as an economist, so I'm not sure if that's the right one. Perhaps you have the name wrong; if you have either a link or more details, we can check to see if it's a reliable source. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You must remember that Wikipedia is just people stating whatever they want so historians may or may not reject his idea, you can't know for sure, and neither can I, but he gives PLENTY of evidence and documents to back him up. And yes, I did have the name wrong. It is Richard Maybury, and he can be trusted, economist or otherwise. There is an 8 step plan the U.S. used to provoke Japan to attack. You can find it in both these books and at whatreallyhappened.com. There is also an article about it on Wikipedia. 69.247.188.19 ( talk) 01:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that was the situation; in fact, your claim about Wikipedia is completely wrong. While it may appear to you (as a presumably new editor) that anyone can say anything they want on Wikipedia, in fact, articles are governed by fairly strict rules (always subject to editorial discretion) about what does and does not belong. One of those rules requires that all statements which can be challenged be cited to reliable sources. You can find information about that on our policy on verifiability, along with our guidelines for reliable sources. Stinett may be a reliable source on some things, but is very much not a reliable source on Pearl Harbor, since his conclusions are generally rejected by the vast majority of historians. As for Maybury, I'm not convinced that the opinions of an economist are the strongest to use for an issue of political and military history. However, if other editors think that Maybury's theories have a place here, then we could include them, properly attributed. The key overriding principle here is that which requires a neutral point of view; in cases where there are different opinions about subjects, we are required to represent all major views in due proportion to how much they are held in real life. And, more to the point, we are specifically required to not include fringe viewpoints in articles in ways that make them look like they are commonly held. As far as I can tell, the theory that ROosevelt knew about the PH attack is pure fringe. However, my opinions, of course, are not the be all and end all of anything. If you'd like, the best place to bring this up is either at the reliable sources noticeboard, or, even better, the fringe theory noticeboard. If you like, I would be happy to raise the issue there. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My question to you would be, how do you know what you're saying is true? How do you know that most historians reject stinnett? True, wikipedia says that, but do you have another source? You have yet to list a "reliable source" for your claims, yet you keep asking me to. Also, you said nothing about the 8-part McCollum memo for provoking Japan. Look it up. Also, Navy Rear Admiral Robert Theobald says he knew, along with Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and Henry Clausen just to name a few. These are reliable sources entirely since they are part of the Navy. 12.52.250.126 ( talk) 22:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Alas, the McCollum Memo has been misused by supporters of Japan and Germany in 1941 to justify their attacks on the U.S. Almost seems like the US attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor. Rjensen ( talk) 02:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Rjensen - I myself NOT being a supporter of Japan in the war am not saying they were right, but the McCollum plan was made to provoke them into attacking so they would of course use it to justify their attack. My original argument was that FDR knew about the attacks and I have lifted sources to back it up. Here are some more... www.nypress.com/article-4183-fdr-knew-pearl-harbor-was-coming.html - whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/.../pearl.html - It seems obvious to me that the proof is unmistakable. 69.247.188.19 ( talk) 02:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC) BTW, just for a heads up, I just created an account, so you will see a different signature from here out. Personalskeptic ( talk) 03:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Day of Deceit article sites 4 different historians, some of whom are well noted, that state, not just that they disagree with Stinett, but that his claims are patently and completely false. That's pretty strong for me, although if there were other academic sources supporting Stinnett, that could change. Whatreallyhappened is a self-published site, so not a reliable source. The McCollum plan itself is a primary source, so it should not be included by itself, although it can be references as long as there are also secondary sources that discuss it. I only briefly looked at nypress, and it does look useful, although I haven't read it in detail. As a newspaper it's certainly not enough to stand on its own against academic sources, but perhaps it can point us to academic sources that would be sufficient. I know it sounds harsh that I keep pushing this back on you, but this is because of WP:BURDEN--the burden of work is always on the person who wants to add info, so if you really think there are strong sources supporting it (if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend reading WP:RS, which explains what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources), it's up to you to present them. Basically, to me, the question I see is this: Most historians reject that FDR had foreknowledge of the attacks. However, is this simply a "minority" theory, or is it a fringe theory. If the former, then we must include the theory (properly sourced), briefly. If the latter, we should not include it at all. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As you said, my opinion is not the end all. There is a good bit of evidence for both sides, that is why this debate has gone on for so long. All I'm saying is I believe he knew, and there are government documents to prove it. I'm also reading another book called the Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable by George Victor. It gives more positive evidence, not speculation that points to the fact that he knew. Obviously, you have a different opinion. You beleive what has been taught for years, but that is your choice. I have studied both sides and have found very good eveidence that points to the fact that he knew beforehand, so I believe that way. I still say you can't disagree with the Government documents that explain it all, so I don't see how you can, but that is a choice. Also, just because someone is a historian doesn't mean they know all there is to know about the subject, nor do I. I am just stating what I believe to be true by the evidence I have studied. Personalskeptic ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

did FDR know? there are three problems: a) who told him? no conspiracy theorist has found a likely candidate. b) how did that person know? The Japanese were very good at keeping secreats (Hitler did not know beforehand about Pearl Harbor and neither did the Japanese foreign service). c) the theories are all invented by FDR's bitter enemies, who have a motivation for making up lies. Rjensen ( talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Rjensen - How do you know the theories were invented? Do you have proof? He was given cable after cable of cracked Japanese codes by American cryptologists showing of the planned attack, yet he didn't tell his Navy officers at the Harbor. You can't argue with government documents that prove it. Personalskeptic ( talk) 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not here to write history based on source documents. We're here to summarize what historians have written, giving weight according to the prominence of their views. To the extent that this is a legitimate debate, it's covered in Pearl Harbor debate article.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is covered to an extent but it doesn't list all the evidence and leans toward one view. Personalskeptic ( talk) 01:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles should only include "evidence" that is referenced in reliable secondary sources. And articles, while using the neutral point of view, should lean or give greater weight to the majority view. If a significant minority holds a different view then that should be included too, but given less weight. You've already been pointed to the relevant policies, and this discussion won't be productive unless you read them carefully.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, whatever. This is just my opinion, and I respect everyone else's. All of you need to take time to look into it though, I think. No need for anyone to get upset. I believe I HAVE listed relevant sources, so I don't think I've broken any rules. I actually enjoyed the discussion and I'm glad that the others were willing to dialogue with me. :) Personalskeptic ( talk) 01:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

♠"the 8-part McCollum memo for provoking Japan" That claim begins to make me weary. The memo cannot be read outside its context, & the claims of "provoking Japan" are doing exactly that. The U.S. had an interest in Japan making the first overt move as a means to allow blockade on Japan, as a means to aid China. Both Winston & FDR wanted to avoid war with Japan, knowing perfectly well war with Japan only aided Germany. Moreover, McCollum damn well knew it, too, because he'd written a memo saying as much. (A memo so accurate, it was as if he'd sat in on Hitler's staff meeting on the subject!)

♠"As far as I can tell, the theory that ROosevelt knew about the PH attack is pure fringe" It is, & has been for more than 25yr. Even then, there were warnings about "revisionist history", & that's where this falls. (The loonier fringe of it, IMO.)

♠"How do you know that most historians reject stinnett?" See above. Also, read the actual evidence. If that fails, read Stinnett's footnotes: one of his own sources (Whitlock) expressly contradicts his main thesis... >:S

♠"FDR Knew Pearl Harbor Was Coming" The piece sounds good, but it relies on 2d hand accounts & memories after the fact, which undoubtedly color recollection. (Memory is terribly fallible to that.) It also treats the situation with Japan in isolation, ignoring the main objective, aid Britain. (It also claims "blockade" had been imposed on Japan, which is flat wrong.) Moreover, it ignores the underlying faults. It presumes Japan was too incompetent to achieve surprise on her own, & it attributes to FDR & others actions of benefit only to Germany.

♠"[FDR] knew, and there are government documents to prove it" No, there aren't. There's a lot of allegations & a lot of misdirection, but no evidence.

♠"I have studied both sides and have found very good eveidence that points to the fact that he knew beforehand" How much of that "good evidence" takes account of FDR's actual actions in 1940-41? Or of Winston's requests to him to "deter" or "frighten" Japan? Or of Hitler's opinion a war between Japan & the U.S. would be of benefit to Germany? "Good evidence"? Fat chance.

♠"He was given cable after cable of cracked Japanese codes by American cryptologists showing of the planned attack" Wrong. PURPLE contained nothing about the planned attack, nor could it, because the diplomats using PURPLE had not been told about it. Nor were U.S. cryppies reading JN-25 well enough to get anything of value from it. Nor was there the manpower to read the lower-grade cypher (J-19) with the oft-cited "bomb plot" message. Hindsight is 20/20... (I will confess IDK if OP-20G was reading the movement cypher at all; it might've contained something useful. I've never yet seen it offered as evidence, tho.)

♠"yet he didn't tell his Navy officers at the Harbor" Wrong again, per above. Moreover, as Whitlock notes (& Stinnett ignores...), MacArthur had everything DC had, & was just as surprised as Kimmel & Short.

♠"You can't argue with government documents that prove it" They don't. And it's the claims they do I argue with. (How many of the supposed "proof documents" weren't even translated until 1945, or later?)

♠"All of you need to take time to look into it though" Believe me, I have, for quite awhile, & the more I read of this garbage, the more convinced I become of how gullible some people are. Toland's Infamy & Stinnett's Day of Deciet are both written very persuasively, if you don't know enough about the subject to doubt them, or spot the flaws in the argument. Gordon Prange's Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History deals with it all, in excruciating detail, & hammers the conspiracy nuts. It's also very readable. It's not as...glib as Stinnett, but it's reasoned so tightly, you could make a drumhead out of it. If you read one book on the subject, read that one. You can stop after that, 'cause you don't need anything else. He covered everything I've seen in 25yr, & stuff I hadn't besides. (He reproduced Popov's questionnarire!) If I hadn't been convinced before, Prange would've done it.

♠This nonsense does not belong here, for undue weight on a fringe theory. If I had my way, Day of Deceit would be gone. Or it would be a redirect to comedy. It doesn't deserve refutation by serious historiographers. It deserves ridicule. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:22 & 05:31 & 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Proof that FDR Knew

Day of deceit: the truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor ( ISBN  9780743201292) clearly shows that FDR was aware of the Pearl Harbor Attacks prior to their culmination. I am surprised that there is any question on the subject, now that the documents that proved this were released per the Freedom of Information Act. Whatever may be the reason for his reticence on this interesting subject (perhaps political maneuvering or trying to fix his broken image after the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937) we need to include this information in the article. I have added a neutrality tag to notify interested users of this ongoing debate. The full article is Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate-- Novus Orator 11:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Historians don't know everything. They need to have a Secret clearance first.-- Novus Orator 11:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Day_of_Deceit#Reception, this looks like a fringe theory. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Day of Deceit has been soundly renounced by credible historians across the political spectrum. If this isn't fringe, I question what constitutes fringe. THD3 ( talk) 14:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Day of Deceit does not tell who told FDR, or when, or how that person knew so much and had access to FDR but did not tell any general or admiral. It's not a matter of serious discussion in the RS Rjensen ( talk) 02:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? What about the McCollum memo?-- Novus Orator 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

the McCollum memo was written in Oct 1940 more than a year before the Japanese planned the Pearl Harbor attack and it never mentions Pearl Harbor. Stinnett gets rejected by the RS. For example, Philip Zelikow in Foreign Affairs says of Stinnett "his most sensational items are premised on the false belief that American intelligence had broken the Japanese naval code before the attack. In fact, it was not decrypted until after Pearl Harbor. Aside from questioning the competence and honesty of two officers in U.S. naval intelligence (in a case concerning the Japanese fleet's radio silence and U.S. radio direction-finding), the book offers little new. Stinnett never fashions his nuggets of research into a coherent argument, much less a convincing portrait. It is odd that an otherwise respectable publisher did not insist on such coherence before peddling this book with its sensational press release." for some other devasgtating reviews on Stinnett's incompetence see by Philip H. Jacobsen Or try leading historian Dr. Conrad Crane in Parameters: "Unfortunately the author failed to do much basic secondary historical research and has a tendency to leap to conclusions based on questionable or erroneous interpretations of evidence. This is a dangerous book that will dupe unsuspecting readers who misinterpret the author's earnestness and technical explanations as signs of balance and accuracy, and it will perpetuate myths that should have long been forgotten." Crane review Rjensen ( talk) 03:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I find nothing in that source that refutes Stinnett's thesis. It seems to be rather an indictment of the author rather than an analysis of the evidence. IF Stinnett is incorrect, where is the rebuttal?-- Novus Orator 03:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question. Why have these "competent" historians ignored this evidence if it is true?-- Novus Orator 03:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You rebut a theory by showing the author is all wrong about critical points--for example he falsely assumed the US had broken the Japanese naval code. Rjensen ( talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How? How did he falsely assume? The credibility of this so called "historian" might be called into question if he can't offer a good critique!-- Novus Orator 04:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stinnett was a professional photographer who could not read Japanese and who misread the English documents because he made a series of false assumptions, and since no one agreed with him he decided the truth had been deliberately destroyed. That is he assumed that the top and middle level American naval and military leaders were traitors because they covered up what Stinnett thinks were "facts". It's standard conspiracy stuff that no scholar has accepted. Rjensen ( talk) 04:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That strikes me as an ad hominem argument. Until you provide clear evidence rebutting his information, I will insist on this being mentioned.-- Novus Orator 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You all appear to be falling into a very common trap--arguing about the topic, instead of about the article. Wikipedia is not here to determine what "really happened" or, specifically FDR "really knew". All we care is what reliable sources believe. If most reliable historians (as stated on Day of Deceit) believe that it's not reliable info, than we cannot include it here. It's really that simple. We only include opinions if they are WP:DUE inclusion, and it appears that DoD is not. Not because I think Stinett is right, or wrong, or a photographer, or whatever, but because reliable sources say the opinion isn't credible enough to deserve a place in reliable history. Now, if, because of more recent revelations, the opinions of reliable historians change, to the point where the DoD theory is considered to be believable, then, at that point, we can include it on this page. But Wikipedia must follow the sources, not lead them. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Stinnett couldn't get it right if it was handed to him. He relies on messages not translated til after the war, puts forward flimsy evidence (transmissions along lines of latitude as proof? Really?), makes absurd claims (signals before the task force sorties are breaches of radio silence?), &, the capper, can't see it when his own source (Whitlock) undermines his position (note 8 to chapter 2, IIRC). The McCollum Memo, in context, can as easily (more easily, IMO) be read as a list of actions to avoid (since FDR wanted to avoid war with Japan, at Churchill's express request...). More important, the revisionist loons can't see the fundamental flaws in their position. One, it's racist: it implies the Japanese were too incompetent to succeed without the help of whites. Two, it ignores what FDR had been doing for a year, trying to get Congress to declare war on Germany (or Germany to declare on the U.S..... Three (related to two), it ignores FDR's objective, which is to aid Britain: war with Japan does not aid Britain. In short, the conspiracy demands FDR be a Nazi. Which is why no credible historian takes this garbage seriously. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely ZERO justification for the photo of the Japanese family in this article. Until I see a picture of a hanger full of flag-draped caskets for Bush II, the newly homeless family of an unemployed factory worker for Reagan, or FFS even a goddamn Hooverville for Herbert Hoover, wikipedia is completely unjustified in singling out FDR for such overt criticism (not that surprising since "Jimbo" Wales is a confessed libertarian). 71.234.198.222 ( talk) 05:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that all of your comparisons were for Republican Presidents. Being a bit pointy are we?-- Jojhutton ( talk) 01:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how it hateful propaganda? The nearby text is factual, the image supports the text, and the caption is neutral and factual. It doesn't seem to be undue weight compared to the rest of the article. ( Hohum  ^@) 06:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For fairness and balance, maybe it could be put next to a photo of the U.S.S. Arizona. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, while I don't agree with User:71.234.198.222 that this is "hateful propaganda," I am inclined to agree with the idea that this picture doesn't belong in this article. That picture has no direct connection with FDR in an encyclopedic sense. The picture certainly belongs in Japanese American internment, possibly in Executive Order 9066, possibly even in Japanese American; but it doesn't seem like it belongs here. In fact, I'd argue that the picture of the Dust Bowl and the Migrant Mother also don't belong here. I took a quick look through a few other U.S. President articles, and saw only pictures of the Presidents themselves (at various points in their lives), or, occasionally, pictures of their possessions (house, car, etc.). In other words, the idea is that the three pictures here not of Roosevelt don't actually help the reader understand Franklin D. Roosevelt any better, and thus should be removed. Qwyrxian ( talk) 08:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

agree--remove it. Rjensen ( talk) 09:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do the two of you think the other two (in the sections First New Deal and Second New Deal) should go, too? Qwyrxian ( talk) 09:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably better suited for articles on the individual topics instead of this one. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FDR has his critics of his economic policies. This article reads like some canonizing article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 ( talk • contribs) 10:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, why no mention at all of the well-documented fact that General McCarthy knew that thebJapanese were attacking American land and he did not raise the alert at all, thus resulting in the simple takeover of his authority and the death march of his subjects? Instead of telling America what happened, FDR treated him like a hero. This is a MAJOR fact of history that speaks to a major action of FDR and it's not even included in any way. Of course, it could be that the Wikipedia editors have a bias, which is clearly seen in the other discussions on this age. ````TC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.118.130 ( talk) 06:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a major fact, please produce reliable sources to support that fact. Please be aware that we include opinions in due proportion to their validity in the real world, so just because some authors have asserted that MacArthur (you mean Douglas MacArthur, not McCarthy, right?) and/or FDR knew, if mainstream historians don't support it, we may not be able to include it. Also, it sounds like these concerns belong in the MacArthur article, not this one, although it will depend on what the sources say. In any event, the best first step is for you to provide sources and we can judge how/if this info should go into the article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

His relatively strong anti-semitism might be of interest for a criticism section. 80.216.47.208 ( talk) 12:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A charge like that would need a rock solid source, and would have to be balanced with other information. Roosevelt appointed an unprecedented number of Jews to his administration. Indeed, in 1940, he was accused of being part of a Zionist conspiracy due to his strong anti-Hitler stance. A popular ditty of the time had FDR telling Eleanor; You kiss the N---ers, I'll kiss the Jews, and we'll stay in the White House as long as we choose. THD3 ( talk) 14:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)