Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

Template:V0.5

• Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive1
• Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive2
• Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive3 - May - September 2006

older entries

FDR propogated the greatest human rights violations in the United States since slavery. His internment of the Japanese should be highlighted in it's own section entitled "human rights violations."

/S Here is the version before my edits:

He pushed for admission of African-Americans into better positions in military. In 1942 Roosevelt made the final decision in ordering the internment of Japanese citizens and their American-born children during World War II.[1] Beginning in the 1960s he was charged with not acting decisively enough to prevent or stop the Holocaust which killed 6 million Jews. Critics cite episodes such as when in 1939, he did not allow the SS St. Louis filled with 950 Jewish refugees into the United States. Defenders point out that the Roosevelt could not violate the federal laws that prevented the refugees from landing.

I took out the UTexas source link, only because its focus seemed a little different from what the Wikipedia article text was talking about. I changed it to "Japanese American citizens" as opposed to "Japanese citizens" to be clear that they were American citizens of Japanese descent, not citizens of Japan. Also, I re-worded the Holocaust/St. Louis bits because it was rife with weasel words. (Charged by who? Which defenders? Which federal laws? Is it a notable defense? Etc.) It'd be great if someone could come up with more specific/sourced information about the charges/defenders. Schi 23:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear what happened. The adults (Issei) were Japanese citizens and NOT citizens of US. The children (most under 21 but not all) had US citizenshio and most also had dual Japanese citizenship. Rjensen 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Interning enemy nationals is routine in wartime; the internment of American citizens is what is controversial. Roosevelt interned German and Italian citizens as well, but not American citizens of German or Italian descent. I don't see the point in mentioning Japanese citizens unless we also have sourced that considered their internment to be a violation of their civil rights. -Will Beback 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Japanese American citizens, that is U.S. citizens of Japanese descent, were interned. From the Wikipedia article (emphasis added): "Japanese American Internment refers to the forcible relocation of approximately 110,000[1] Japanese and Japanese Americans (62 percent of whom were United States citizens)[2] [3] from the west coast during World War II to hastily constructed housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps" in remote portions of the nation's interior." Schi 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the great majority of citizens were children under 21 who went to the camps with their parents. FDR's main goal was not the kids but the parents, who were citizens of Japan but not USA. Rjensen 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That is probably true but the civil rights violation was of the citizens not of the nationals. If our goal is to report on all of the enemy aliens interned then that is different, but the heading for this section is "civil rights". Therefore I think we should limit ourselves to reporting on the perceived civil rights violations, not the general domestic conduct of the war. -Will Beback 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should give the correct information. As for perceptions: the Supreme Court announced there was no civil rights violation. The "perception" came decades later. Rjensen 03:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not incorrect that he ordered the internment of Japanese Americans, a violation of their civil rights. He also orderd the internment of enemy aliens, but they did not have civil rights which are the focus of this section. It is incorrect to say that complaints about thte internment did not occur contemporaneously. There were protests and court cases. -Will Beback 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Issei were not citizens of the US but they were citizens of Japan. They were the targets of the order. There were very few protests indeed--and the Supreme Court explictly ruled in favor of FDR. So we say all that. This is a bio of FDR after all, not a history of the 1980s when opinion changed on the righness of the actions. Rjensen 06:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The order covered all persons of Japanese nationality on the West Coast, not limited or even directly targeted at enemy aliens. There were protests and court cases, though more came later. We do have the benefit of hindsight and Roosevelt's decision in this matter is considered a black mark on his presidency. Finally, this is a section devoted to his civil rights activities. If you think that his overall enemy alien internment policy is worth mentioning then it belongs in a different section. -Will Beback 06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Black mark? that sounds like POV. Rjensen 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We're allowed to have opinions on talk pages. ;) -Will Beback 09:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but we have to keep them out of the main page. It's especially POV to slant the story to obscure the main group FDR was worried about and concentrate instead on their children. Rjensen 09:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The order referred to people of Japanese ancestry. What evidence do you have that he was targetting only the Japanese citizens? -Will Beback 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The children under 21 of Japanese ancestry were not the target (they were seldom mentioned). There was an enormous discussion of the Issei who were citizens of Japan --that is there was significant worry that in fact they were loyal to their country. Rjensen 09:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What are our sources for this information? General DeWitt did not seem to care about such distinctions:

• I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty...It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty...But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map.[2]

According to our own article, Executive Order 9066, 62% of internees were 2nd generation. That article also links to 3 separate Supreme Court cases concerning the internments, which indicate that it was a disputed issue at the time. -Will Beback 09:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the language proposed is fine on the Internment. On the Holocaust, if we're going to reference to issues first being raised in the 60s, I'd like to have a cite of some sort to when they were raised or who raised them. Also, on the St. Louis, the sub article is clear that it was the State Department, not Roosevelt, who denied permission; both your language and the prior language leave the decision in Roosevelt's hands, and it would be nice to fix this, and make it consistent with the more thorough article, while making the other changes. Thanks. Sam 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

the Supreme Court ruled for FDR. DeWitt certainly had his views--as did many others like Earl Warren, but this is about FDR, not about them. The 63% you mention were mostly children under 21--nobody proposed they be taken away from their parents. The demographic data is in US Department of the Interior, War Relocation Authority, The Evacuated People: A Quantitative Description (1946) and in Dorothy Thomas The Salvage. For Some age data see Daniels [3] [4]

We aren't doubting that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of FDR. The issue is that there were those that opposed it at the time. (The Supreme Court currently allows abortion, but that isn't a sign that there are no objections to it). DeWitt was FDR's advisor, and we aren't concerned with his views but with his actions, with which DeWitt was involved. How do you know that the Japanese Citizens were the real target, and that the 62% were mostly children? -Will Beback 10:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

DeWitt was not FDR's advisor, he was in the military chain of command. Was there opposition? Not much. The main Japanese American organizations endorsed the moves and did NOT file suit. A few (3 or 4) affected individuals filed suit. The age breakdown is in the standard sources. Rjensen 11:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about which "standard sources" you're relying upon? DeWitt, though an officer, nonetheless advised FDR. While the protests may have been few they did reach the highest court in the land so it is inaccurate to say that the perception of the interment as a wrong was not solely a construct of later generations. Truman himself authorized compensation in 1948 for the economic losses. Getting back to the core issue, there is still nothing to show that interning foreign nationals violated civil rights, or that the enemy aliens were the sole target of the program (as opposed to U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry). Unless we find substntiatoin for those points, the text in question should focus on the 62% whose civil rights were violated, seeing as "Civil rights issues" is the heading of the section. -Will Beback 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: contemporaneous protests.

• During World War II our rector was willing to incur the wrath of others when he went to stand in front of the train carrying Japanese-Americans to internment camps.[5]

This is from a sermon by the current rector of All Saints Episcopal Church. -Will Beback 12:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Korematsu case, of course, deals with the internment of a US citizen of Japense ancestry[6]; the specific order in question and cited in the decision is an order to intern all persons of Japanese ancestry, not those who are Japanese citizens. Please note that this discussion is not the main discussion of the issue, and that the main discussion should be put into the sub article or into the article on the Internment; this should only be a summary. I would be interested in the specific citations for the breakdown of age and citizenship. Sam 15:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this: In 1942 Roosevelt made the final decision in ordering the internment of Japanese Americans and other ethnic groups during World War II. Japanese American means those of Japanese descent that are residents or citizens of the U.S. I think Rjensen's concern that the executive order targeted the first-generation Japanese Americans is not necessarily relevant. Until we see evidence about the intention of the order, we should stick to what the order actually accomplished - and in any case, as Sam pointed out, this article is just a summary and more details about intention, etc. should be discussed in the main article. As for the question of whether or not the order/internment counts as a civil rights issue, I agree with Will Beback. There is enough evidence in the form of contemporaneous court cases and later events that this is indeed a "civil rights issue", which is what this subsection is about.

Also, what about the other issue I raised about the wording of the Holocaust charges? I see that my edits were entirely reverted, even though the issues I raised (mainly that there are weasel words about who the critics/defenders are) about the the Holocaust charges were not addressed. Schi 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, Japanese Americans were the only ethnic group interned. Otherwise it looks fine to me. -Will Beback 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I included it because someone else had previously tried to add it to the article before and it was reverted. From the Japanese American internment article: Some 120,000 U.S. residents of German and Italian descent across the country were also arrested and interned as security risks, but no compensation was ever paid to them. Schi 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where the "120,000" figure comes from - it isn't in the cited sources. They give much smaller numbers, and give no indication how many of the internees were citizens. The bulk were internees from Latin America. In any case, some number of American citizens of Italian and German ancestry were interned, so I suppose it's fair to include them as "other ethnic groups". -Will Beback 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fala link

This isn't my area of expertise, so I'll refrain from just throwing it into the article, but there is a reasonably extensive page (forog) on FDR's pet Scottish Terrier, Fala, that probably deserves a link from this one.

--Furpants Tom 08:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

FDR propogated the greatest human rights violations in the United States since slavery. His internment of the Japanese should be highlighted in it's own section entitled "human rights violations."

Hoes and pimps

Is the Hoes and Pimp comment in the opening paragraph really appropriate, and if so you should provide a citation

thanks

Prankster

I do nto see anything in here about FDR being a prankster, but he was.

Roosevelt University

Can we place something about Roosevelt University in the article? It was dedicated to him by Eleanor two weeks after his death in 1945. I don't know if Legacy would be the best place or someplace else.--Twintone 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems notable to me, probably best in Legacy. I think Legacy should be turned into a subarticle at some point so it can grow more freely, but don't have the energy to do it now. Sam 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Business Plot

Why is there no mention of the Business Plot in the FDR article? hellenica 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Because all his biographers skip over it---it's a famous hoax. Rjensen 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article above does not believe it was a hoax. It even says that there was proof but the whole matter was just swept under the rug and forgotten. Gdo01 01:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Several hundred historians have looked into it and dismissed it. and No evidence has turned up in 70 years. what does a hoax look like? Wiki insists on reliable sources. Rjensen 01:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you even clicked the link to Business Plot? Apparantly many wikipedians believe that this is notable and true and have provided many citations. If you have a differing opinion then you should discuss it on the talk page there. Gdo01 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I worked on that article until a couple of conspiracy theorists seized control. There is no stopping folks like that. The ABSENCE of reliable sources proves to them there is an ongoing conspiracy in the 21st century to cover "it" up. They never define the plot: they never give a date. They usually ignore the fact that it was promoted by leading anti-semites who had a nazi-like theory of a jewish conspiracy to take over America. Sigh. I recommend people stay with Kennedy assassination theories. Rjensen 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Do I take it that there was a congresssional committee hearing? Do I take it that allegations were made? If so it is a matter of judgement whether these facts should be included in the article. One thing about WP is that it often includes material left out by others...but I would not presume to insert anything. I think the stuff about Fala is overdone; there should be more about FDR and Poland (whoops!) but there are those other than conspiracy theorists who lack tolerance. Roger Arguile 10:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The rule is that Wiki only reports the consensus os scholars as reported in reliable sources. We don't report hoaxes. There was a Congressional hearing regarding the activity of a retired Marine general named Butler who planned to raise hundreds of thousands of veterans, march on washington, and take over the government. The media ridiculed this as a publicity stunt by Butler (who was never arrested). there was no Congressional report. An anti-semite writer (Spivak) then published 2 articles claiming there was a business conspiracy.

Even if there were substance to support the whole thing, there is nothing sufficiently notable to merit inclusion given all the other cuts that have been made to keep this article of reasonable size. Just look at all the substance moved into subarticles like the Civil Rights or Criticisms articles. So, I wouldn't mention this at all. Sam 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Franklin D. Roosevelt

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be a good idea, and would work with moving the legacy section to a subarticle and making it "legacy and cultural depiction" - there is a lot of interesting material here, though perhaps not on the same scale as D'Arc or Alexander. It would save a legacy subarticle from becoming a rather flat recitation of honors. Sam 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bannanas (sic)

Could someone explain why someone who can't even spell his vandalising contribution wants to mess about with this site? Why is it that FDR, who was not such a good man IMHO should attract such silliness? I happen to think that this article is hagiography. I am, on the other hand, too boringly responsible to mess with it. Is this the reasonfor the vandalism? Maybe the vandals need a better hearing from the proper. I notice all these upright chaps and chappesses declaring that they have zero tolerance of vandalism, but not of hagiographising apparently. Maybe we should be listening to something to which we are at present deaf. Or am I seeing too much in all of this?Roger Arguile 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not been following this page, so I'm not sure exactly what you're refering to. If it's vandalism, that happens to be virtually every other popular article in wikipedia; this one is no exception. The problem is that wikipedia has become a standard starting place for research for tens of millions of high school and college kids, and a small percentage of them can't resist the urge to change THE article on FDR or JFK or whomever or whatever, and get instant gratification.

The solution is page protection or semi page protection, but there has been a reluctance by administrators to do that for most articles, since (in the early days) anonymous IP addresses played a large part in building wikipedia. So it falls upon editors like you and me to patrol pages and revert vandalism as quickly as we can. John Broughton | Talk 14:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

20th Amendment

Should we add, FDR's first term as President was shortend by the 20th Amendment of the US Constitution? GoodDay 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Like a little girl?

Hi all. I don't normally contribute actively to Wikipedia, but I just thought I should report a case of vandalism in the first paragraph, "A central figure of the 20th century, he does the cha cha like a little girl. HE has consistently been ranked as one of the three greatest U.S. presidents in scholarly surveys." I don't know what the original sentence was supposed to be, but I highly doubt that FDR was a big fan of the cha cha. I'd edit it myself if I really knew how or felt like putting in the effort. Hope this gets sorted out. Sorry for the anonymity.

That vandalism was fixed yesterday night around 7 pm (EST). I don't know why your browser is showing you a revision that old. Gdo01 16:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Time Person of the Year

Hey, I was looking at the Time Person of the Year wiki article and I was wondering if you should had to this that FDR is the only one to be that 3 times. I thought that was intersting 72.161.19.205 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Contraction of Illness

It would be nice if this section could be expanded a little. How quickly did the illness progress? Was he fine one day and paralyzed the next? It is not clear. 75.42.156.105 02:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There is more info at Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. Sam 03:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1934 attempt coup d'état

General Butler exposed in 1934 a coup d'état against FDR, via congressional hearings. Led by MacGuire. I don't have reliable sources yet, but it sounds interesting... John Buchanan investigated. — Xiutwel (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

general Butler admitted that HE Was planning the coup to overthrow Roosevelt with the aid of a salesman named McGuire. No reliable sources support his theory. Rjensen 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See #Business Plot section, above, for more discussion. John Broughton | Talk 14:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition to See Also section of FDR page

Please add the following resource to the SEE ALSO section:

<a href="http://www.fdrheritage.org">Franklin D. Roosevelt American Heritage Museum</a> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plaud (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

I've added information in the last paragraph of the article. [The "See also" section of Wikipedia articles is for referring readers to other Wikipedia articles (and there is not one about this museum).] John Broughton | Talk 19:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Tax policy

There have been a couple of reverts of long-standing language on tax policy; I think it is important to have a discussion of Roosevelt's tax policy in this article, though am not wed to the particular language now included. Among the important points are that while Roosevelt is often charged (and once was in this article) with being the original source of high rates and a broad tax base, it was actually during Hoover's administration that the rates first increased, and the broadening of the tax base and compressing of the rates didn't occur until World War II, when the extraordinary needs of that War required them. Let's discuss what to do with this section, and end up with something better than is there now but not with nothing at all. Sam 22:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a biography of FDR and it is highly misleading to users to include Hoover's legislation that FDR had zero to do with. This is NOT a general history of the US. Furthermore the best scholarship should be used (like Leff). Rjensen 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that the high tax rates introduced during the depression occurred on Hoovers, rather than FDR's watch is not well understood; but, in general, I like your language better than what was here before; I made a few tweaks, see what you think of them. Always good to see more citations added. Best, Sam 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're now agreed. looks good. Rjensen 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Obituary, NY Times, April 13, 1945, Family Of Wealth Gave Advantages

The obit for FDR, published 4/13/1945, should be included under External Links in the FDR article. (I was surprised to discover that it hadn't already been cited.)

It runs to eight pages, and being an in depth contemporaneous source, represents a significant cache of additional information on this important president.

The suggested External Links insertion: Obituary, NY Times, April 13, 1945 Family Of Wealth Gave Advantages 68.228.70.223 11:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias and incorrect information in the Overview

From the Overview section:

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic system. His most famous legacies include the Social Security system and the regulation of Wall Street. His aggressive use of an active federal government reenergized the Democratic Party. Roosevelt built the New Deal coalition that dominated politics into the 1960s. He and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, remain touchstones for modern American liberalism. The conservatives vehemently fought back, but Roosevelt consistently prevailed until he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. Thereafter, the new Conservative coalition successfully ended New Deal expansion, and closed most programs like the WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, arguing that unemployment had disappeared.

First off this is very poorly written and I am a bit shocked that this has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community.

The section that starts with:

"The conservatives vehemently fought back,"

Fought back to what? To He and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, remaining touchstones for modern American liberalism??? That is the sentence before that statement, and it seems someone is tryign to make a POV statement.

Further more, This sentence is an outright lie: "Roosevelt consistently prevailed until he tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937."

Actually FDR did not pre-vail and his new deal legislation was voted un-constitutional by the supreme court, Afterwards, he did not only TRY to pack the court, HE DID!

Read the Court Packing wiki if you don't believe me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_packing

From The Article:

Court Packing was proposed in response to the Supreme Court overturning several of his New Deal measures that proponents claim were designed to help the United States recover from the Great Depression.

I find the majority of wiki articles relating to politics are filled with dis-information like I just decribed. 66.31.222.89 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)peterp