Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Bad map

Under the section "Presidency, 1933-1945," the map purporting to show FDR's world travels during his time in office is very misguided and misleading. It does not, in fact, show FDR's trips; it shows instead the countries that he visited a small part of, but not his itineraries. He was certainly never in Corsica, Siberia, Patagonia, Northern Ireland, or the Yukon as president (and I very much doubt at any other time in his life, as well). It also omits his well-known visit to Morocco to confer with Churchill in 1943. (For that matter, the article itself does not even mention the Casablanca Conference).

Thus, the map gives a reader no useful visual information. It should be deleted, or else remade with dots to show the specific localities visited, not entire countries. Textorus (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Details on geneaology and children

I removed the following to moderate the amount of detail on his ancestry:

His paternal grandmother, Mary Rebecca Aspinwall, was a first cousin of Elizabeth Monroe, wife of the fifth U.S. President, James Monroe. His maternal grandfather Warren Delano II – a descendant of Mayflower passengers Richard Warren, Isaac Allerton, Degory Priest, and Francis Cooke – during a period of twelve years in China made more than a million dollars in the tea trade in Macau, Canton, and Hong Kong; but upon returning to the United States, he lost it all in the Panic of 1857. In 1860, he returned to China and made a fortune in the notorious but highly profitable opium trade supplying opium-based medication to the U. S. War Department during the American Civil War, although not exclusively. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also removed the following to moderate detail:

They were both descended from Claes Martensz van Rosenvelt (Roosevelt), who arrived in New Amsterdam (Manhattan) from the Netherlands in the 1640s. Rosenvelt's (Roosevelt) two grandsons, Johannes and Jacobus, began the Long Island and Hudson River branches of the Roosevelt family, respectively. Eleanor and Theodore Roosevelt were descended from the Johannes branch, while FDR came from the Jacobus branch. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also removed the following details re children's lives - links are provided in the article:

The five surviving Roosevelt children led tumultuous lives overshadowed by their famous parents. They had a total of nineteen marriages, fifteen divorces, and twenty-nine children. All four sons were officers in World War II and were decorated for bravery. Two of them were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives—FDR, Jr. served three terms representing the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and James served six terms representing the 26th district in California—but none was elected to higher office despite several attempts. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Parking place for ref to later golf

following to be re-inserted at better location in article; Roosevelt later became the only U.S. president to design a golf course when he built nine holes on the complex he bought in Warm Springs, Georgia. The course featured many paths and roads to allow disabled people easy access. Carmarg4 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lwdgrfx, 5 May 2011

Please note that in this passage: "By this time he had become more consistently progressive, in support of labor and social welfare programs for women and children; cousin Teddy was of some influence on these issues.[40] Roosevelt, again in opposition to Tammany Hall, supported Woodrow Wilson's successful bid in the 1812 presidential election, and thereby earned a informal designation as an original Wilson man.[41] This opened the door for opportunities in the Wilson administration. Roosevelt resigned from the New York State Senate on March 17, 1913, to accept his appointment as Assistant U.S. Secretary of the Navy.[42]"

where it says 'Wilson's successful bid in the 1812 presidential election'

it should say:'Wilson's successful bid in the 1912 presidential election'

Lwdgrfx (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Verification needed

I have removed the following statement and cite because I cannot verify the statement or the reliability of the source: "He had high hopes for the [United Nations] conference, and was even considering resigning from the presidency to become the first Secretary General of the United Nations." Carmarg4 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress on format of references/footnotes

FYI. I am about half way through. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following references - all listed under a single footnote - about various rankings of the presidents. I think the number is excessive (the link in the article has 14 rankings itself). If these are to be retained, I think they should be listed under references and not within a footnote:

Thomas A. Bailey, Presidential Greatness (1966), a non quantitative appraisal by leading historian;
Degregorio, William A. The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. 4th ed. New York: Avenel, 1993. Contains the results of the 1962 and 1982 surveys;
Charles and Richard Faber The American Presidents Ranked by Performance (2000);
Murray, Robert K. and Tim H. Blessing. Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, from Washington Through Ronald Reagan (1994);
Pfiffner, James P., "Ranking the Presidents: Continuity and Volatility" White House Studies, Vol. 3, 2003 pp 23+;
Ridings, William J., Jr. and Stuart B. McIver. Rating the Presidents: A Ranking of U.S. leaders, from the Great and Honorable to the Dishonest and Incompetent (1997). ISBN 0-8065-1799-9.;
Schlesinger, Jr. Arthur M. "Ranking the Presidents: From Washington to Clinton," Political Science Quarterly (1997) 112:179–90;
Skidmore, Max J. Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review (2004);
Taranto, James and Leonard Leo, eds. Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and Worst in the White House (2004). ISBN 0-7432-5433-3, for Federalist Society surveys.;
Vedder, Richard and Gallaway, Lowell, "Rating Presidential Performance" in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom ed. John V. Denson, Mises Institute, 2001, for libertarian views.

Whew! Carmarg4 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

References

I added a reference (Schweikart and Allen) which I cited in the 2d New deal section, representing the opposing view as to the 2 New Deal scenario. I have reinstated the reference out of necessity to provide a source for the addition I made to the text. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

First 100 Days

The article states that the "first 100 days" began on March 4, 1933, the date on which Roosevelt took office. That is not correct. The "100 days" refers to the length of the special session of Congress that Roosevelt called when he took office. The session convened on March 9, 1933, and adjourned on June 16, 1933. During that session, most of the initial New Deal legislation was passed.

In reality, the "100 days" was a fluke of history, and in light of the adoption of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution, cannot occur again. When Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, Congress was not in session. Under then-effective constitutional provisions, its next regular session would not begin until January 3, 1934. Believing that immediate action was required, and that delay would be prejudicial, Roosevelt called a special session of Congress.

Today, when the President takes office on January 20, the Congress is already in session (the usual starting date being on or about January 3, pursuant to the 20th Amendment). Thus, there is no opportunity or need for the President to convene a special session of Congress, or to create the sense of drama and expectancy that was generated by Roosevelt's proclamation regarding a special session.

In light of the unique circumstances surrounding the "first 100 days" in Roosevelt's time, and the now-effective provisions of the Constitution, judging his successors by their accomplishments, or lack thereof, in the first 100 days of their term of office is unrealistic and unfair. John Paul Parks (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Are stamp images sufficiently significant to be included

This issue has been the subject of lengthy discussion at Lincoln. The consensus has been reached there that stamps are not of sufficient significance and do not inform the reader to the degree appropriate for inclusion. Space limitations need to be considered here as well. I have deleted the image inserted here, and a link to the stamps is provided. User Gwillhickers disagrees. Please comment. Carmarg4 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following from the family name, early life and education section, as it belongs elsewhere for context: Roosevelt was an avid stamp collector, and the media coverage of his collecting activities helped to popularize it as a hobby. During his tenure Roosevelt approved personally all the new US stamp designs, a total of 200 stamps, some of which were designed from his personal sketches.William H. Young, Nancy K. Young (2007). The Great Depression in America: A Cultural Encyclopedia (illustrated ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 520–521. ISBN 0313335206.. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Transfer image of family coat of arms to Roosevelt family article?

There is a link provided to the Roosevelt family article (at the beginning of FDR's Personal life section); that article includes a section on the family coat of arms without the image located here. I think the coat of arms belongs in the family article rather than in the FDR article. Thoughts? Carmarg4 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I will wait another day or so and If there is no objection I'll transfer the coat of arms to the family article. Carmarg4 (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There being no comment, the image has been moved to family article. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Belated support. The family article is more apropos for the coat of arms than here.THD3 (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the coat of arms is better placed there. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Image and audio file overcrowding/arrangement

I have removed the image to the right - there is no adequate space in the section to which it relates. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cox/Roosevelt poster

There are currently 2 audio files in the media section, but 3 others posted in the body of the article. For consistency, I would suggest that all of the audio files be consolidated into the media section. Thoughts? Carmarg4 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that 5 media files are too many for the article. Like an image file they should only be located where they're relevant. A media section would be the equivalent of having a photo gallery. Choose what is most important and the rest can be found on commons. I'll give opinion on images later today. Brad (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following firechat audio file per the above. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

At the moment all images are fine with MOS except for missing alt text. See WP:ALT. Brad (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Media section should be removed

The recommendation has been made above to eliminate the media section and allow readers to rely in the usual manner on the commons for extra images and audio files. Thoughts? Carmarg4 (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend no, because many potential users will not know how to follow up. We have lots of school kids we need to help. Rjensen (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we put the stamp gallery above or below the media gallery? Brad (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think external links are adequate (see very bottom or article). Carmarg4 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Economic data in graphs and tables

In the Economic environment section, the text of the article covers in detail all the numbers - for the Gross National Product, the deficit spending and unemployment. There are two graphs and a table in the section showing the same data. These charts take up alot of space and do not add any information to the article. Are they needed? Carmarg4 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

some people can see patterns better in tables, some in graphs. I would keep both. Rjensen (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

One cite should not be there. Another cite got messed up.

Cite should not be there: Concerning FDR's paralytic illness, the article says "this diagnosis was later questioned" and cites Lomazow "The Untold Neurological Disease of Franklin Delano Roosevelt". However, the Lomazow article does not question the cause of FDR's paralytic illness. "The Untold Neurological Disease" is something else, not related to the cause of FDR's paralysis. So the Lomazow citation, which has been in place for about a year, is wrong here. DoctorJoeE introduced this error. Could a regular editor (I don't have an account) look at the text, and change back to the way it was before DoctorJoeE wreaked it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=381994622 (August 2010)

Cite got messed up: I also noticed the Goldman citation got messed up, courtesy of Hoppyh. The mangled cite lists "Random House" as publisher, incorrectly capitalizes article title, and deletes actual journal citation. Could a regular editor look at the citation and restore to previous correct version before Hoppyh damaged it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=427306152 (May 2011) Thanks. 174.21.125.25 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

FDR's ancestry

We should put some thing in here stating that he is the descendant of Egbert of Wessex and many more. I will put a link showing his royal family tree. Click on "family tree" to see link. It’s just a suggestion but I think it’s important. --Kenlukus (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlukus (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

no--that is not in the standard biographies because the biographers do not consider it important. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - please see section above where I moved the family coat of arms to the Roosevelt family article which is devoted to this very topic. Hoppyh (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Jewish and about his attitude to the Jews of Europe

In a speech in 1942 Hitler called him "Half Jewsih" (can be seen and heard on Youtube and recorded in a Polish resistance paper reaching the English military and its translation copied to all high ranking officers and officials at the time. Roosevelt being a Jew is repeated as a fact in antisemitic websites like JewWatch.com. It was totally refuted by various researchers. I can show the details one by one, but basically, the fact is that family researchers know exactly who his ancestors are quite far back into time. And they were not Jewish.

An old man now living in my town claims that his father was a young official or the Jewish Aid Committee during WWII, had met and spoke with Roosvelt and that Roosevelt saved countless Jews during WWII. On the other hand Rabbi Isaac Herzog traveled from (then 'Palestine') Israel, to the US during the war (and back!). In his biography "Singled out in his Generation" the author tells of the rabbi's meeting with Roosevelt, who kept on smiling, without replying, although the rabbi spoke about the blood of the Jewish people. The author tells about the rabbi's hair, that changed from black and gray to white, when coming out of the meeting.

The claim about the Saint Lewis is that they had official permission to land in the US but received a specific notification from Roosevelt himself, not to allow them into New York. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New documents from the National Archives related to this topic

This message is to inform editors interested in the topic of this article that there are new documents from the US National Archives related to the topic now available on Commons. The Commons category "Franklin D. Roosevelt Library Public Domain Photographs, compiled 1882 - 1962" currently contains 1992 files. Please browse the category for images which could be used in this or related articles. These files represent the best quality images of the documents that have been made, and if they duplicate any images already being used, please update the article with the higher-resolution images from the National Archives.

These were uploaded as a result of a cooperation between the National Archives and Wikimedia. Please visit our project page at WP:NARA to learn how help with our collaboration with the National Archives. In addition, any textual documents in the series may be transcribed on Wikisource; please see WS:NARA to get involved in transcribing documents. Dominic·t 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help and fix what I can't: category syntax and citation problems.

I'm sorry I can't fix the following myself, but all I can do now and for the foreseeable future is report it and ask for help:

• References 80-83 are all listed in bold & red as Cite Errors.
• The 00:23, 22 October 2011‎ edit (edit summary: new key for Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt: " " using HotCat), left the category being piped to nothing. Should it stay that way, have the pipe character removed, or revert to the way it was? I have no idea.
• Also see the section below from July called, "One cite should not be there. Another cite got messed up." on this talk page for other suggested corrections.
• You might want to search the talk archives to see if there are other cite or syntax problems mentioned. I only added the one that caught my eye in the Contents.

Thanks for your help. I wish I didn't have to keep on posting help requests on various talk pages, but chronic illness really limits my ability to even do that sometimes, so... Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.212.50.243 (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning FDR's paralytic illness, the article says "this diagnosis was later questioned" and cites Lomazow "The Untold Neurological Disease of Franklin Delano Roosevelt". However, the Lomazow article does not question the cause of FDR's paralytic illness. "The Untold Neurological Disease" is something else, not related to the cause of FDR's paralysis. So the Lomazow citation is 100% wrong here. Could an editor change back to the correct way it was before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franklin_D._Roosevelt&oldid=381994622 Thanks

This is correct, Lomazow should be cited in a different place, when discussing what finally killed him. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Br. Spelling

In the opening paragraph, Roosevelt is quoted describing himself and his cabinet as "left of centre". Using the British spelling may be a faithful reproduction of the sources (though this seems unlikely, as both authors are American). However, in American English, the spelling "center" had overtaken "centre" by the beginning of the 20th Century. (See this Ngram search, as well as this more direct search.) Normally, I wouldn't take exception to a non-American editor using non-American spelling in a wiki article, but it seems unjust to put regionalist misorderings of letters into the mouth of a great American president.

Good catch. The sources both use "center". I don't know how they ended up as "centre", but I've corrected them now.   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just do some recent changes patrol and you'll see why that happened. There is a legion of people that go all around the system changing "center" to "centre" and "fiber" to "fibre" and "color" to "colour", etc., and then another legion that changes them all back. It's one of the oldest Wikipedia traditions. Wknight94 ^talk 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. However in this case it appears the spelling "correction" occurred during the initial edit.[1]   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

Theodore was FDR's uncle, not fifth cousin, as is incorrectly stated. It needs to be changed to state "uncle". Dkeever2 (talk)

Teddy was FDR's uncle, not fifth cousin, as is stated. It needs to be stated as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkeever2 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's your source for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, further research. Dkeever2's statement is incorrect. Check the tree in Roosevelt family, and you'll see that Teddy and Franklin were in the same generation, and that their common ancestor was Nicholas Roosevelt, and that they were indeed 5th cousins. His wife Eleanor was a niece of TR and was a 5th-cousin-once-removed from FDR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it sez in both the references that I have close at hand (Goodwin and Smith) -- and that's what I learned in high school many, many moons ago. True, TR was 20-something years older, but I've never seen them listed as uncle/nephew in any reference of any sort. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Teddy was Eleanor's uncle, which is another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Prohibition repeal fact check

This article describes an Executive Order as raising the limit to 3.2%-- the article on Prohibition says: "As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, especially in the big cities, "Repeal" was eagerly anticipated. On March 23, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead Act known as the Cullen-Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of "3.2 beer" (3.2% alcohol by weight, approximately 4% alcohol by volume) and light wines. The original Volstead Act had defined "intoxicating beverage" as one with greater than 0.5% alcohol.[7] Upon signing the amendment, Roosevelt made his famous remark; "I think this would be a good time for a beer."[37] The Cullen-Harrison Act became law on April 7, 1933, and on April 8, 1933, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. sent a team of Clydesdale horses to deliver a case of Budweiser to the White House. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed on December 5, 1933 with ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. Despite the efforts of Heber J. Grant and the LDS Church, a Utah convention helped ratify the 21st Amendment.[38] While Utah can be considered the deciding 36th state to ratify the Amendment and make it law, the day Utah approved the Amendment, both Pennsylvania and Ohio approved it as well." Someone please reconcile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.69.127 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Name

There is an incorrect name listed under "The Roosevelt Cabinet". Roosevelt's second Secretary of the Navy was not Edwin Denby, but instead Charles Edison. Edwin Denby was Secretary of the Navy, but during the presidencies of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. I request that this factual error be fixed as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.248.1.126 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lede section

I believe expanding the lede section on WWII as FDR the military leader would help. Remember, he intiated the creation of the Atom bomb. He was a good administrator and was an active in making decisions concerning overall strategy of the War. The mention of the imprisonment of Japanese needs to be stated in the lede section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

good changes--I tweaked it a bit. The internment of the Japanese was not especially controversial at the time, (large majorities approved in 1942) nor is it controversial in 2012 (large majorities disapprove) so "controversially" has to go. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Those are good points of views. That is fine on eliminating the word "controversy" section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

views on race

I think this account In the section on FDR's view on race policy would be better balancdif it linked to the wiki entry on the 1943 Casablanca Conference and FDR's astonishing remarks re Morocco sited there; and picked up with approval by the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.101.192 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Polio

he had polio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmyjojo (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we know. And your point is......?--Green4liberty (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the real point: How do you "know"? What's the evidence for your certainty? And "everyone says so" is not evidence. 71.212.52.164 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

Please link the Fala reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fala_(dog)

173.79.104.149 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Already linked. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Separate Presidential article

I know this may seem like a daunting task, but I recommend a separate Roosevelt Presidential article for the following reasons:

• Roosevelt was elected 4 terms and served 3 complete terms in office.
• The Depression and WWII are extensive subject areas during his Presidency.
• Having a separate article on Roosevelt's Presidency would free up space in his main biography article. Freeing up space would inturn help editors to get Roosevelts biography article to GA status and to focus the article on Roosevelt and his accomplishments. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

we already have a separate article on the New Deal, which should be enough. Stripping too much out to leave this as "FDR-before-1933" makes for a dull article, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the New Deal covers most of FDR as President. There was a series of Neutrality Acts, The Gold Reserve Act, Farm Mortgage Refinancing Act; Tydings-McDuffy Act that freed the Philippines in ten years; Cuba was released from Platt Amendment by treaty. A Presidency article might put Roosevelt's lengthly Presidency into historical perspective. However, the articles written adequately cover FDR's Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Roosevelt

i need a report on franklin roosevelt and how he was a part in world war 2. i need a who what where why when, can you help me i need a paragraph for each one. Please helpp mee(: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.60.43 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

The page for Franklin D Roosevelt has a section on the internment of Japanese during World War II, it states that Roosevelt did not imprison Japanese that were US citizens, this is completely false. The section conflicts with your page on Japanese American internment, which states that 110,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese were interned. The beloved FDR imprisoned US citizens in desolate desserts, multiple families sharing tiny shacks, losing most of their belongings and property. This was a horribly shameful act by the government and the president and I believe all Americans should know about it. Mnishi81 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the article does not say that -- although what it does say does not appear to be correct either. It says EO 9066 ordered relocation of Issei and Nisei (Nisei were US citizens) -- in fact the order never mentioned any specific ethnic groups -- it designated certain areas as "military zones" which could be evacuated of "any and all" personnel at the discretion of the military. The military used that order as their authority to evacuate ethnic Japanese (regardless of citizenship status), Germans, and Italians from large swaths of land. This is now viewed (appropriately, IMHO) as a blot on our historic reputation, even though it was considered appropriate at the time. The main article on Japanese American internment spells all of this out, so it's not as if WP is trying to conceal anything. That said, inaccuracies in the internment section of this article should be corrected. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 22:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The facts about the internment camps should be referenced, in my opinion, to the government documents released and the apologies made last year about Japanese Americans who were interned. If I remember correctly didn't someone in the Obama administration (perhaps the president himself) say "Japanese Americans"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.205.222 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover's "new" book

I know Herbert Hoover died in 1964, but his book "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" was just printed in November 2011. Reportedly, he was about to publish the book when he died. His heirs decided not to publish it, maybe because it was too controversial. I don't know. I'm bringing this book to the attention of the editors of this wiki article in case you were not already aware of it. Much new historical material in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.114.177 (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I read it--it has an excellent introduction by George Nash. Hoover himself says nothing new or useful re FDR. Rjensen (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

John Spritzler as source

Any objections to using John Spritzler as source: The People As Enemy: The Leaders' Hidden Agenda in World War II? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

strong objection. I have never seen a RS that take his anarchist/conspiracy theories seriously--his credentials: "John Spritzler holds a Doctor of Science degree in Biostatistics from the Harvard School of Public Health where he is employed as a Research Scientist engaged in AIDS clinical trials." Rjensen (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

His book is interesting. Thanks for the input, Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

William D. Pederson as source

Any objections to William D. Pederson A Companion to Franklin D. Roosevelt as source? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

that is very solid and up-to-date history. Note the leading publisher. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to put in the article Pederson's view concerning Japanese Internment. Pederson stated the Japanese Internment was one of the "Roosevelt Administration's more unfortunate decisions." I believe this would add historical analysis to the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

it's covered in two different sections now. Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Executive order #----?

PIGS CAN FLY!The article says that President Roosevelt attempted to enact a 100% income tax on all income over $25,000 which was later rescinded by congress. I do not have access to the book that is cited for this fact, but the title does sound a little fishy, and when I go over a list of executive orders issued in 1941 (which is pretty daunting), I cannot find anything referencing this. Could someone who is more acquainted with the source look into it and possibly correct this? Here's the URL for the National Archives' list of executive orders from 1941, in case you find something: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1941.html Franzose (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's "Executive Order 9250 Establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization. October 3, 1942 " 7. In order to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort, the Director is authorized to take the necessary action, and to issue the appropriate regulations, so that, insofar as practicable no salary shall be authorized under Title III, Section 4, to the extent that it exceeds $25,000 after the payment of taxes allocable to the sum in excess of $25,000." online source 05:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Civil rights

Is there any objection to having a Civil Rights segment in the Presidential section? Throughout all of his Presidency not one Civil Rights legislation was passed, yet, he was able to capture the African American vote due primarily to his wife and his Secretary of Interior Harold L. Ickes efforts to help African Americans. Apparently Roosevelt wanted his new deal legistlation to pass Congress so he did not push for any federal civil rights legislation. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the FDR article and the issue belongs in New Deal article. FDR did in fact take a leading pprogressive position on civil rights during the war years. The black community supported FDR in 1930s because it was highly interested in jobs and welfare, which it got. rhetoric like "appease" (used mostly in 1930s regarding Hitler) suggest a POV motivation that crosses the line. Wiki editors have to be neutral to be effective. Rjensen (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion did not use the word appease. Taking leading progressive position in the U.S. military from 1941 to 1945 on civil rights is only part of Roosevelts presidency. WWII started during his third term in office. In Roosevelts 1931 initial election blacks voted of Herbert Hoover. Also during the initial beginings of the New Deal black leaders protested discrimination in New Deal practices. President Roosevelt was the first President to speak out against the violation of Jewish civil rights in Nazi controlled Europe. If Roosevelt thought Civil Rights was worth mentioning concerning the Jews, maybe Civil Rights is worth mentioning in the article. Why such resistance? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are signifigant civil rights issues to be raised and not ignored since Roosevelt was elected to four times as President of the United States and had the longest record for any President to hold the office of the Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why the entire Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Race_and_civil_rights section can't be moved to his tenure as president unless he had an effect on it while he was not president?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe there would be better format in the Presidency section since his actions as President directly affected Civil Rights, including his ability to sign civil rights legislation. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I renamed the section to Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Civil_rights. I don't know why it was diff from all the others. The link to the main article Franklin D. Roosevelt's record on civil rights looks like it could use a merge/delete/trim/POV slap as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Canoe1967. The main article on FDR's record on civil rights does need work. I believe the Civil Rights sections needs work and needs to be put in his Presidency. FDR was President when he imprisoned Japanese, Italian, and German families. His New Deal policies did affect race and race relations. He apparently was neutral or against the Wagner Anti-Lynching bill. His wife was more race progressive and Sec. Ickes did allot to help African Americans. FDR was in office for over 12 years and no Civil Rights bill was ever passed by Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bank Holiday chronology

I think this is wrong:

His inauguration on March 4, 1933, occurred in the middle of a bank panic, hence the backdrop for his famous words: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."[75] The very next day Congress passed the Emergency Banking Act which declared a "bank holiday" and announced a plan to allow banks to reopen.[78]

As far as I can tell, the inauguration was 4 March, FDR declared the bank holiday 5 March, and the Emergency Banking Act was passed 9 March. The Act retroactively legalized the holiday. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs more critical analysis

This article seems to come off as a tribute to FDR. Their is growing critique of his policies in modern times and lets not even forget that he was opposed by congress on a lot of issues. The long term effects of his presidency and his role in the Great Depression need to be looked at it in a more critical view. Countless sources available to do this and I hate it when an article on Clinton or Bush or Obama or Carter offer up criticism and critique of their policies but FDR gets painted as a infallible demigod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.42.140 (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hitler reference Superfluous?

"When Roosevelt was inaugurated March 4, 1933 (32 days after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany), the U.S. was at the nadir of the worst depression in its history. A quarter of the workforce was unemployed."

That Hitler was appointed Chancellor 32 days earlier is indeed a fact. But why do we care? Are there critical similarities between Hitler and FDR that need to be noted over both their lives? If it's because they are adversaries in the future, perhaps we should mention that Tojo was promoted to Major General plus or minus "x" number of days from this mark in 1933.

It's an interesting fact. It doesn't add to our understanding of FDR. The fact that Hitler was Chancellor at this point in time has no historical impact on FDR's decisions in 1933. It likely has no impact for his whole first term.

For lack of a better term, the Hitler information is, trivia. I suggest it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.144.31 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is very must add understandint to who FDR was and what he and with him USA of that time stood for. In a world of deep crisis with leaders of the greatest nations of the world going their seperate ways America choice the democratic, progressive and keyneian way out of the crisis where Germany choice the facistic, nationalistic and autarkian road. Ways that was dicussed in USA in the time of FDR, but he stood up for the New Deal instead of Autrarkiaisme.

There was a lot of leaders and generals in the second world war, but it was more than anyone else the two men, Roosevelt and Hitler, that clashed in the worlds biggest conflict. Roosevelt was Hitlers Waterloo. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hitler crashed on the rocks of Churchill and Stalin more than FDR.

Map Error

The map of places that FDR visited during his presidency has an error. The Crimean Peninsula is mistakenly left uncolored (ironically this was the only part of the USSR that FDR actually visited). It should match the rest of the USSR. 68.37.161.91 (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement makes no sense

The fourth paragraph of the introduction begins with this statement: "Roosevelt dominated the American political scene, not only during the twelve years of his presidency, but for decades afterward." This statement makes no sense considering the fact that Roosevelt did not live for decades after his presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.128.167 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2012‎

You are absolutely right about that, but it means his political influence, and symbolisation dominated. Good observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole levine 24 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Could someone put in a hyper-link for Social Register?

This reference in the early life section caused me confusion i.e. conflating with the following sentence espousing liberal, christian values, I thought it meant 90% of the students were on welfare - which is of course, quite the opposite. There is a wikipedia article on Social Register that could be linked and might be useful for non-Americans. I would do it myself but can't find my log in details! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.13.28 (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Citations

This article was de-listed as a Featured Article two years ago, mostly due to lack of citations. I'd like to try to add these citations in the coming days and see if we can get this back up to at least a Good Article. (I'm doing similar work at Eleanor Roosevelt, if anyone's interested in pitching in there, too.) I'll also correct any other issues I see as I go, noting anything potentially controversial here. Any help would be welcome! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness

A discussion is ongoing at Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness which may be of concern to editors here, too. It regards the degree to which that article should be based on a 2003 journal article stating that FDR may have had Guillain Barre syndrome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Paralytic disease

The flat statement that "However, his age at onset (39 years) and the majority of symptoms of his illness are more consistent with a diagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome" is highly contentious. This theory has been advanced, but has not received wide acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've made the language of this section clearer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me this change makes it less clear. If it's a minority opinion, let's just say that. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time this morning looking at how many sources actually discuss this theory. Most seem to dismiss it in a footnote, if they mention it at all, including a book-length study of FDR's health issues. I've detailed this at the subpage on the illness. I'd argue that it doesn't belong in the main article for now, until much more widely discussed and accepted, and have consequently removed it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So we have gone from giving a sourced minority opinion undue weight to ignoring it completely. That is an equally bad idea. It does not follow that polio is the correct diagnosis simply because "a majority of historians" (none of whom know anything about medicine) assume that it is correct, based only on the fact that other medically-ignorant historians have always assumed that it was correct. In debate parlance, this is an example of both argumentum ad populum and begging the question (assuming it is true because we assume it is true). I totally get that WP is source driven; but the polio diagnosis has been a subject of debate in medical circles for many years, at least since my medical school days 30 years ago, and there is reliable source material to that effect. The journal article that you removed is not unsupported speculation -- it is a statistical analysis of the frequency of paralytic poliomyelitis and Guillian-Barré syndrome in adults of Roosevelt's age in 1921, and the likelihood of his symptoms occurring in either of the two diseases. Six of eight probabilities in the analysis favor Guillian-Barré, while only two (fever and permanent paralysis) favor poliomyelitis. To ignore this published data completely is to imply that there is no debate, which is unencyclopedic. It deserves at least a parenthetical sentence, or a footnote. In my humble opinion. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 22:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, but Roosevelt is one of the most written-about individuals in US history. It seems to me undue weight to give prominent mention to any single article that doesn't feature in later reliable sources, and I haven't seen evidence that this does. (It does belong in the more detailed illness article, of course.) As I detailed at the other page, even the medical historians I looked at dismissed this paper in a footnote or simply ignored it, and flatly state that FDR had polio.

Like I said, it's possible that I'm overlooking some sources that take this possibility far more seriously, and if I am, I'm glad to be corrected. But right now, I feel like we have one journal article against a consensus of thousands of scholarly works, including the most prestigious sources on FDR. It's not just that the paper's not accepted--it's not even a real part of the discussion. Argumentum ad populum may be a logical fallacy, but argumentum ad scholarum is how Wikipedia works, right? (Sorry for the butchered Latin). -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The point, once again, is that the diagnosis is not absolute, as presently implied in the article. The uncertainty should be documented; that's the encyclopedic thing to do. In the future, if someone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in fact a highly unusual presentation of poliomyelitis, we can say that. It's not our fault if most FDR scholars have dropped the ball on this. At the very, VERY least, it should be mentioned that it was highly unusual for an otherwise healthy 39-year-old man to contract polio out of nowhere, without any evidence of exposure. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

An IP and I have been attempting to drill into the sources in more detail at the dedicated article at Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness if you'd like to join the discussion there; the IP is arguing that that article should be primarily based on the 2003 paper. But it appears to me that even peer-reviewed medical sources discussing FDR's health in detail refer to the diagnosis unambiguously as polio (there's one possible exception I noted at that page that I don't have access to). Since this is also the universal opinion of Roosevelt historians (both writing before the paper and after) and the diagnosis of FDR's doctors, I think that the GBS possibility is for now a very small minority view, and we need to be very careful in including it.

As a possible way forward, what, concretely, would you suggest adding to the article? It's not that I'm 100% opposed to this appearing in the article; I'm just not sure how to do it in a limited space while also fairly summarizing the scholarly consensus against it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To add another wrinkle to this, most of the references to the GBS theory in Wikipedia appear to have been added by an account with the same name as one of the article's authors. The edits of the Dagoldman account has largely consisted of adding information about this doctor's projects and articles to Wikipedia. I'm removing these from related articles as promotional, probable COI for now. I'd invite you to look over my shoulder, though, if you feel this doctor's work is legitimate enough that it should remain despite the apparent self-promotion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a bit of sticky wicket -- but as you point out, it doesn't necessarily mean that the data is not legitimate, and I think it is. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's unfortunate because it leaves the discussion really wrong-footed. We debate the Goldman in detail, see how often it's cited, etc., while we don't invest even 5% as much effort for another peer-reviewed article like Ditunno's (2002) [2], because no one has that kind of investment in the latter. No matter the opinions on it, Goldman immediately has the attention of every editor as a source, instead of being discovered and incorporated organically, and we have to be very careful not to build our thinking around this source as a result.

I think the best way around this issue is a thorough review of the medical literature. It seems deeply unfair to highlight Goldman over authors like Ditunno simply because Goldman was self-promoting; I don't want to punish this theory for his COI work, but I also hate to reward it. At a minimum, if we're going to include the findings of one peer-reviewed medical article, I propose we include the findings of all the major ones we can find, unless some are clearly more widely cited by Roosevelt specialists than others.

The complication, unfortunately, is that I don't have access to a lot of medical databases--I can see titles and sometimes abstracts, and that's it for me. Do you have access to some of these, and if so, would you be willing to undertake a review of other peer-reviewed articles? Or perhaps forward some to me by e-mail if that's legit? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 01:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was re-reading a section of Jean Edward Smith's 2007 FDR for another article just now, which I think has a fair claim to be the most current authoritative FDR biography. Smith does actually mention the GBS theory in a footnote. I apologize for overlooking this previously; I'd checked it through a Google Books search, which hadn't turned anything up. Smith clearly still favors the polio diagnosis--the chapter is called "Polio", and pages and pages review the facts about polio--but if it's worth a footnoted mention for him, it's probably worth a footnoted mention for us. The trick now is to find a phrasing that acknowledges this possibility while also making it clear it hasn't gained wide acceptance. The previous phrasing by DA Goldman strikes me as still unacceptable, but I'm open to suggestion for how this can be rewritten. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Second New Deal

As long as we are addressing the problem of minority viewpoints, and how much weight to give them in the article, we should look at the last paragraph of the "Second New Deal" section, which begins as a dissenting view of the "two New Deals" concept and veers off into non-sequitors. One cited source, a book called A Patriot's History of the United States, is a right-wing diatribe full of historical inaccuracies, omissions, and jingoistic bias that hardly qualifies as "reliable". The other, the Burns biography, is legitimate, but the cited quote is taken well out of context; if memory serves, Burns was saying that while it might *appear* that FDR was "fighting blindly", he was actually following his own philosophy of trying something, and if it didn't work, admitting it frankly and trying something else. I have no problem, obviously, with including minority opinions (since I'm fighting for inclusion of the Guillain-Barre thing), but they should be accurate. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

When there are so many full length books out there, three sentences for Schweikart and Allen's views is too much; we can't quote every general US history book on FDR, and there's no reason to give this one special weight. As for Burns, a fuller version of the context of the quotation is here:

"Roosevelt, in short, made no consciously planned, grandly executed deployment to the left. He was like the general of a guerrilla army whose columns, fighting blindly in the mountains through dense ravines and thickets, suddenly converge, half by plan and half by coincidence, and debouch into the plain below."

The surrounding paragraphs discuss Roosevelt as more pragmatic than ideological, finding his way as he goes. "Replete with sudden reversals" is definitely a distortion of this quotation; rather, the gist is that Roosevelt improvised to keep a political middle course and get where he intended to go all along. I'd definitely support a revision of this paragraph. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

you can find lots of polemics regarding the New Deal. from both left and right. The passage from Schweikart and Allen, from the right, is, I believe, a sober analysis that they explicitly say is a minority viewpoint. That passage (pp 559-61) appears useful to me and does not appear to contain any "historical inaccuracies, omissions, and jingoistic bias". And yes a conservative political viewpoint is needed to meet Wiki's rules about covering all major points of view. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I fully agree that the viewpoints of conservative historians are needed for the article; I just don't think we should give Schweikart and Allen a full paragraph to make their case, unless they're recognized as Roosevelt specialists in a way I'm not aware of. If they do represent a broader critique, then we can easily expand the paragraph to give other examples of that view. I have Paul Johnson's History of the US on my shelf, for example; I seem to recall that his favorite 20th century presidents were Harding, Nixon, and Reagan, so I'm sure he'll have a good nasty quote about FDR that we can add in. I'll try to remember to check this later. In either case, the Burns quotation does seem in need of fixing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was my point. I'm also in complete agreement that conservative viewpoints are needed; but the Schweikart & Allen book was written solely as a rebuttal to Howard Zinn's equally slanted and distorted People's History of the United States, and neither qualifies as a "sober analysis" IMHO. Plenty of valid dissenting analyses of the New Deal and other FDR policies have been published by well-regarded academic historians who do not work for Fox News or MSNBC, and would be much more appropriate in this article. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any further comment on this for two days, I've gone ahead and revised the paragraph a bit, reducing Sch and Allen to two sentences and expanding on the Burns quotation to give a clearer context. I'm glad to discuss further if anybody wants to. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I think your change is good. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Marguerite LeHand

As long as I know the eyes of other Roosevelt-interested editors are on this page, I thought I'd mention that I just expanded Marguerite LeHand with hopes of getting it promoted to Good Article status. If anyone would like to take a look, other eyes/sources/opinions would be welcome. I'm primarily relying so far on the histories available from my local library: Cook, Rowley, Goodwin, and Smith. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. Hoping to get to Hopkins, Hickok, Thompson, and the rest of the Franklin/Eleanor entourage in the coming week; as long as I have a range of sources here I figure I should do as much as I can. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Frances Perkins article is pretty darn close to GA... You could probably kick it through the uprights and get full credit for the assist. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It does look very close--I just might have to try that. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheerleader

Hopefully this won't be particularly controversial, but I removed two-word reference to FDR's being a cheerleader at Harvard that I couldn't immediately find any reliable sources for via Google Books or in the books I have at home; I suspect this is probably true, but seems to veer into the trivial if it's not even appearing in 800-1000 page biographies of the man. It looks as though the main source for this is either Harvard alumni stuff or popular books on cheerleading that include lists of US Presidents who were once cheerleaders (which, by the way, would be a great Wikipedia list, though certain to be deleted).

I'm continuing to source things as I go. I may occasionally make tweaks based on the language/claims of specific sources, but I'll try to be explicit here about any deletions that I make. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the claim about FDR meeting ER at a White House dinner; they had actually met on a train and in society several times in the six months preceding the dinner, and he'd begun writing about her in his diary. Source added. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the note that FDR met Churchill for the first time during his visit to 1918 England; nothing appears to have come of this meeting, so it's just an interesting side note. As a general note, since this is article is seriously overlong at 78Kb readable prose (per WP:PAGESIZE), I'm going to err on the side of deleting minor unsourced details. (To put that number in perspective, that's 11Kb longer than our article on World War II.) I'll try to keep noting them here, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Lede way too long

Most of what is in the lede should go into the main body of the article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of what is summarized in the lede is covered in more detail in the body of the article. Furthermore, the longest-serving and arguably best President deserves a lengthy lede, IMHO. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 22:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE is right. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and it has to cover the longest and most complex and most thoroughly analyzed presidential administration in American history. So no, the lead is not too long. keep in mind that most readers depend on the lead to give an outline if they are going to read the whole article, and to give a summary if that is all they plan to read. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on Burns

One thing that's striking as I go through this article line-by-line is how heavily it relies on Burns' 1956 and 1970 biographies. It's not just for simple facts, but for his judgments and comments as well. I think this one may need a bigger overhaul to get to Good Article status than I'd originally hoped. I realize nobody's going to be able to tackle something that large right away, but I thought I'd leave a note here on the concern for future editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We should have more of the 2003 book by Roy Jenkins finished by Richard Neustadt; this book is down in the bibliography but not cited. Jeffrey W. Coker wrote a short biography which is not even in the article. (A short book can be valuable for helping to gauge what is and what is not important for an encyclopedia article.) In 1998 Patrick J. Maney wrote a book which is not even listed here. Similarly, Alan Brinkley wrote a bio in 2010 and it's not here. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading the Coker book now -- just started, but it appears to be an excellent source. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that recent historians have been writing 800 to 1000 pages on FDR-- such as Jean Edward Smith, Conrad Black, and HW Brands. Wikipedia has the equivalent of maybe 40 pages at most. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

FDR Presidency article

This may be the wrong place to discuss this, but why doesn't FDR have a separate Presidency article? He of all presidents certainly deserves one!

Anyone up for the job? --Mhoppmann (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by Academics

Why have you included "and Affairs" in the "Marriage" section of this bio ? This is not only slanderous but unsourced nonsense and totally based on fantasy. It is politically motivated , violates "do no harm" and does credibility damage to wikipedia. 172.248.218.48 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean, "unsourced"? There seem to be about a dozen source citations in that section. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very tactful l to include the "affairs" in "Marriage and affairs", I'm not saying you shouldn't mention the affairs, just be decent and leave it out of the headline. I mean for goodness sake, even Bill Clinton has a "public image" headline, at the very least change it to something more npov, thanks.

Edit request on 22 September 2013

File:FDR 1928 Banner

I have a photo of FDR's 1928 Gubernatorial Campaign Banner (I won the banner)which I am happy to make available for you to add to the FDR web site. It is a one of a kind and shows FDR as a man of vigor and intelligence. If you would like the picture, please email me at [redacted] Thank you.

Tony Stepanski

TonyStepanski (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Not an article change request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Replace "English" with "British" when referring to Prime Minister of UK

One of the lines in the summary reads "...worked closely with English Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet...". This should read "British Prime Minister" which more accurately reflects the full title "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" held by Churchill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom). 2.28.186.144 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)