Talk:New Deal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate New Deal is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States public policy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.


Source for statement attributed to Garraty[edit]

I don't have a lot of time here tonight, but I'll ask one question in an effort to clear up one item.

The article says:

"Their preliminary studies on the origins of the fascist dictatorships and the American (reformed) democracy came to the conclusion that besides essential differences 'the crises led to a limited degree of convergence' on the level of economic and social policy.'"

"Their" is a reference to works by Garraty and Winkler. Pages 5 and 6 from Patel's book serve as the source. Where does Patel say this? I checked every page where Patel mentions Garraty. There isn't a single page that says anything like this. The same goes for Winkler. LesLein (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Patel explicitly refers to all studies on the origins of the fascist dictatorships and the American (reformed) democracy. He made a summary. --Pass3456 (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The article (your edit) says the convergence included the economic realm. Patel says the larger background for his book is based on the similarities. Both Patel and Garraty say that there were "striking" similarities in economic policies. There are links here and in the article to the Garraty article. Quote what Garraty said about the similarities in antidepression policies.
It is original research for an article to present a view that contradicts what the source says. LesLein (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You are rejecting to quote the summary and proposing to quote a sentence you like out of context in order to create new messages. That is original research which is what you are doing. It has been discussed and rejected lenghty Talk:New_Deal#the_crises_led_to_a_limited_degree_of_convergence and at several other places. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The source (Patel) says there were "strikingly similar" economic policies. Have you read its back cover? Did you read page 4? It says that the book's "larger background" is the economic similarities. Why not quote the whole sentence and let readers decide for themselves?
No one seems to want to join you in this subarticle. Where are Rjensen and TFD?
Since you won't quote Garraty, I will. While noting that the politics were antithetical, he wrote that the "antidepression policies displayed striking similarities." How did Patel turn that into a "limited degree of convergence"? LesLein (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
there were similarities--both built a lot of highways and sidewalks, for example. But all the main economic policies were strikingly opposite. For example the New deal heavily promoted free trade & the Nazis promoted autarky (economic trade under tight German control). Rjensen (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph of Garraty's article points out the vast differences in politics and motivations. He then provides the following sentence:

"The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations."

Earlier Garraty wrote that the two governments had "striking similarities." There's no point writing a 39 page article on two things that had nothing in common. Patel says "strikingly similar." Patel's book description says "stunning similarities." His text says that the economic similarities form the "larger background" for his book. Schivelbusch wrote an entire book on the "fundamental similarities." There's no point writing hundreds of pages on programs that had nothing in common.

Pace Pass3456's repeated claims, the CCC was influenced by the German Labor Services. Page 400 of Patel's book states that in 1938 Roosevelt received a report from his Berlin embassy on the German Labor Service. The U.S. didn't "copy these measures in their entirety: instead, it emphasized the fundamental differences" in political goals. Roosevelt wrote to his ambassador: "All of this helps us in planning, even though our methods are of the democratic variety!" Roosevelt's ambassador thanked the Germans for their help. The CCC and the German Labor Service regularly exchanged material. I know of at least four quotes where Roosevelt said he was influenced by fascist economic programs. No one has ever claimed why FDR would make such statements if they weren't true.

If Pass3456 is right, then the following sequence must be true:

1. Garraty writes in his conclusion: "The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations."

2. Patel uses the Garraty article as a reference.

3. Patel believes that in economic policy there is only a "limited degree of convergence."

The article's findings on Garraty's conclusion are the exact opposite of what Garraty wrote. Regardless of anyone's opinion, there is never an excuse for an encyclopedia to do this.

Here's a question for Rjensen that I've been meaning to ask. Last January one of your edit summaries said in part:

"the first quote sounds ominous; but read the whole text & see FDR was denying he was acting too slowly"

This was in response to FDR's famous line paraphrased by Ickes that "what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way."

What was your source for your claim? Can you cite and quote a reference? The book you edited on the Great Depression has a subchapter starting on page 52 titled "A Legislative Storm." That doesn't seem too slow. LesLein (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the Ickes diary--all of it. FDR's grand plans involved free trade and getting out of the ruinous deflation that had lowered wages, profits and prices. Germany rejected free trade and set its prices artificially. The Gov't totally controlled and weakened labor unions. FDR did try to set the gold/dollar price artificially but that did not work and he gave it up. FDR was strengthening labor unions. Rjensen (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you appreciate the diary, too. But you don't really respond to my question. You cite no evidence that FDR was responding to complaints about moving too slowly. The diary for Oct. 4, 1933 provides no information on the background. FDR's statement is completely out of the blue; it's possible that some transition sentence was removed. Edit Summaries are supposed to be accurate; that is my complaint.
There has yet to be any explanation on how Garraty's conclusion that Germany and the New Deal responded in "similar ways" and had "striking similarities" became a "limited degree of convergence." NOR means accurately presenting the scholars' views. NPOV means providing noteworthy views. Garraty broke the taboo and revived interest in the subject. His views should be summarized accurately. Garraty (and Patel) also wrote that the similarities existed because both governments faced similar and unique problems. That should be mentioned, too.
The same applies to Patel. His sentence was edited to omit his key phrase on economic similarities. The right thing to do is to provide the entire sentence. Since NOR permits original research, I performed some myself. Today Patel sent me an e-mail. The following is the main paragraph:
Many thanks for your interest in my book and for your question. Yes, I mean to say that German and American economic policies shared similarities, and I do find that quite striking. The book is then all about these similarities as well as the crucial differences in how the two countries reacted to the Great Depression.
The full exchange is available at my talk page. Concerning Garraty and Patel, the article is almost 180 degrees off. LesLein (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Correction: I intended to say "Since NOR permits original research on talk pages ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talkcontribs) 02:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The professor said there were "similarities", which he found "striking" and "crucial differences." TFD (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the article reflect the similarities by quoting Patel's full sentence? Patel and Garraty both said the economic similarities were striking. The first sentence of the article says that it's about an economic program. The economic similarities were the whole basis for the "charges" (actually "cautionary comparisons").

Garraty's conclusion was "The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations." No one has explained how that results in a "limited degree of convergence." The Patel book and Garraty article can be accessed on the web for free. No one can quote a full sentence from either source that supports what the article says.

Back in January Rjensen wrote: "There is an entire article on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt that has details on charges he was pro-big business, anti-business, fascist, anti-Jewish etc." I suspect that this is the real motivation for people here; nothing about the New Deal can seem critical of Roosevelt. LesLein (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot speak for other editors, but my motivation is to ensure that the article provides the weight to various views that they have in mainstream sources. The New Deal = fascism view is fairly insignificant to the topic. We probably have far too much about it, and ignore more common comparisons, such as with socialism and conservatism. TFD (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
We are somewhat in agreement. I've never tried to show that the New Deal = fascism, but that the critics at least had a point and FDR's denial wasn't true based on comparisons by scholars (at least one a liberal admirer) and his own private statements. At one time I tried to change the subtitle to "Fascist economic ideological influence" or something similar. Since fascism is so inflammatory, I prefer to replace it with a subarticle on the charges that the New Deal limited personal liberty. Brinkley's material on Hayek's book and the New Deal's reaction to it would be a good start. We could mention Garraty's findings of striking similarities as well as his statement that the New Deal expanded political liberty for the less fortunate. We could mention the "four freedoms." My impression is that the charges of fascism subarticle was originally set up to be a strawman.
Another approach is a subarticle rounding up scholars' findings on what influenced New Deal ideology. This can include Schlesinger (no foreign influence); Leuchtenberg (Scandanavian welfare states provided influence, but New Deal was a net exporter of ideas); Garraty; Von Mises (replica of Bismarck's welfare state); Friedman (Bismarck plus domestic sources); Feuer (Soviet Union) and Whitman (19th century German theorists).
There are things wrong with the subarticle that I have never mentioned. For example, the Fascsim article says that fascist governments had common economic characteristics, which contradicts what this subarticle says. That article's source was Stanley Payne, whom everyone here agrees is an expert on fascism. An encyclopedia's articles should be consistent. LesLein (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep FDR quote[edit]

The FDR quote is an important statement and it meets all the Wikipedia rules. The NPOV rules deal with wiki editors not historical persons. There is no doubt about the accuracy and it has been included in standard sources. Les Lein is the only person in the USA who thinks it is "inaccurate" or "false" (& that is based on Les's personal reading of constitutional history). Rjensen (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

+ 1 --Pass3456 (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen and Pass3456. In fact, the objections by LesLein seem obscure, OR and Fringey. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

My reply took a while because like others here, I have a life outside of Wikipedia (sorry Dave Dial). It is lengthy because there is so much wrong with the above statements and the block quote. I also have to repeat some information that other editors should have read before.


Original Research and “that is based on Les's personal reading of constitutional history”

Dave Dial should know that NOR policy doesn’t apply to Talk pages. If Dave Dial and Rjensen had checked above, they would see that I relied on a secondary source. I don’t think it’s possible to find a better one than David Currie. The book I used is part of a series that won an award from the Supreme Court Historical Society. Page 223 says:

“Surely [Cardozo] and all his colleagues were right on the facts of the case [Schechter]: to permit Congress to regulate the wages and hours in a tiny slaughterhouse because of remote effects on interstate commerce would leave nothing for the tenth amendment to reserve.”

Rjensen said that Schechter never mentioned the Bill of Rights. It is a proven fact that he is wrong and I am right. The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion reflects what I wrote. .

My “personal reading” is really the Supreme Court’s. I think it would be unspeakably arrogant for a handful of editors to overrule multiple Supreme Court rulings.

“Obscure” (Due and Undue Weight) and “Les Lein is the only person in the USA who thinks it is "inaccurate" or "false"

I’ll deal with “inaccurate” part later. After I established that Schechter cited the Bill of Rights, the argument switched to claims that the 1935 decision is obsolete and the Tenth Amendment doesn’t protect individual rights. In a 2011 case, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tenth Amendment protects individuals. It used Schechter as a precedent. That makes at least nine people in the USA who think Roosevelt’s claim is false. I am not alone. It is Rjensen and others who are using their personal interpretation of the constitution.

When it comes to due weight in constitutional law, the Supreme Court is the 300 pound gorilla. No constitutional ruling ever used Roosevelt’s fireside chat, yet FDR’s denial gets 100 percent of the weight. That is undue weight and an NPOV violation. Use of the quote doesn’t satisfy “all Wikipedia rules.”

"The FDR quote is an important statement and it meets all the Wikipedia rules. The NPOV rules deal with wiki editors not historical persons. There is no doubt about the accuracy and it has been included in standard sources"

Anyone checking the NOR policy article will see that speeches are original research, like diaries and memoirs. That’s one rule violation. Everyone has had months or years to provide a secondary source.

The problem with using a secondary source that exactly repeats the block quote is that there is no doubt about its inaccuracy. The quote flips around Roosevelt’s two statements. Some other people agree with me. These are the keepers of Roovevelt's official private papers and addresses. The rhetorical question about constitutional rights starts on page 314. The part about fascism, communism, and socialism is on page 317. In between these pages, Roosevelt talks about subjects like economic security, child labor, and the NRA. Fascism and constitutional rights are separate subjects (as TFD said earlier).

The Manual of Style says the following regarding quotations:

“The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced.”

The only exceptions are for brackets and ellipses. The style manual says, “Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text.” The block quote does exactly that.

The block quote violates the manual of style. A misquote repeated from a secondary source is still a misquote.

FDR’s block quote violates the rules on quotations:

“Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false. See this example ([1]) at Phoenix, Arizona. There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles.”

Roosevelt’s claims are obviously false, unless the Supreme Court and his private statements are wrong.

The block quote violates another quotation rule:

“Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.”

The fireside chat uses a rhetorical question. This violates NPOV. While historical figures like Roosevelt don’t have to comply with NPOV, especially when they’re dead, editors quoting them do. NPOV says the following regarding quotations:

“Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.”

The dispute is heated now; it must have been white hot in 1934. Roosevelt’s denial was in a major address. I don’t recall Bush or Obama giving major speeches denouncing the truthers or birthers, respectively. I agree that Roosevelt’s denial is important. However, for accuracy and neutrality, it has to be paraphrased without the part on constitutional rights.

NPOV further states:

“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”

So let’s quote all of FDR’s views on the New Deal and fascism. This includes his statement that he was interested in pursuing the policies of “that admirable Italian gentleman.” Let’s also include what FDR said to Harold Ickes:

"what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done is Russia and even some things that were being done by Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way."

Like all politicians, Roosevelt was more candid and less biased in his private statements. Those quotes are better sourced and more accurate than the block quote. No one ever contested the statements. If they are fringe theory, then FDR is a fringe theorist on the subject and shouldn’t be quoted at all.

In Tim McNeese’s book on the Great Depression, edited by Richard Jensen (Rjensen), page 64 says, “The strict rules of capitalism took a back seat to the latent socialism of the NRA.”

That means that every part of Roosevelt’s block quote is false.

Fringey” [sic]

Over at the NRA article no editor, including Rjensen, thinks that Alistair Cooke’s line about a benevolent dictatorship is fringe theory. Rjensen apparently doesn’t think that Cooke was too old and out of touch to be paraphrased. I guess it wasn’t really all that terrible to refer to it on this talk page.

The Tim McNeese book on the Great Depression that Rjensen edited says, “The National Recovery Administration exerted almost dictatorial power over U.S. business.” McNeese didn’t say that the NRA was benevolent. I don’t think he is a fringe theorist.

Dave Dial proved that he can link to the fringe theory article; nothing else. Dave Dial should read the fringe theory article and find a source before describing George Kennan as a “conservative latter-day author” and “commentator.” Dave Dial never explained why FDR would launch a fringe theory about the New Deal. He didn’t justify his fringe theory at the admin noticeboard; quite the opposite. I look forward to Dave Dial’s explanation of how an inaccurate quotation and a few editors can overrule several unanimous Supreme Court decisions. LesLein (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The NOR policy violation can be overcome, but not by using a misquote. The NPOV and verifiability violations cannot. Neither can the violations of quotation rules. If the block quote is right, then a first rate Supreme Court historian, the Supreme Court, FDR’s private statements, Rjensen’s colleague, and Roosevelt’s official papers are wrong. Those are insurmountable problems. LesLein (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is that because the Court that it violated the 10th amendment which is part of the Bill of Rights, therefore it violated an individual right is OR. As the Court explained the 10th amendment is redundant because it merely restates a principle that is already in the Constitution, that the Congress has no powers other than those provided to it by the Constitution. You need a source saying that an individual right was violated otherwise your comment is original research. Since the Constitution allows states to prohibit the sale of sick chickens, the sale of sick chickens cannot be an individual right. TFD (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
+1 --Pass3456 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The ironies abound. You accuse me of doing OR in order to defend a block quote from a speech, which NOR policy says is original research. In making your claim you provide no research at all. You must have used the same source that said that "the NRA was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Bill of Rights" or that Roosevelt was not referring to the entire Bill of Rights. If you took the trouble to read Schechter or the fireside chat (links provided earlier), you would see that the Supreme Court used the Tenth Amendment to justify its decision and FDR told listeners to check "each provision" of the Bill of Rights.
Even though NOR policy allows OR on talk pages, I went to the trouble to find excellent sources. Besides all nine members of the 1935 Supreme Court I mentioned David Currie, an award winning Supreme Court historian. I also mentionedBond v. United States (2011). It says in part:
In amicus' view, to argue that the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert the legal rights and interests of States and States alone. That, however, is not so. As explained below, Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State.
In other words, the current Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights. Its decision cited Schechter. This would be pointless if it believed that the Tenth Amendment was redundant. If the Tenth Amendment was redundant, the court wouldn't have mentioned it in the Schechter case. The Schechter brothers couldn't have used the Tenth Amendment in the first place if it didn't protect individual rights.
I also checked what Richard Beeman, the leading scholar on the constitutional convention, said about the Tenth Amendment. Beeman was the main source for the Wiki Bill of Rights' subarticle on the Massachusetts Compromise. If the Massachusetts convention hadn't decided to propose an amendment resembling the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution never would have been ratified. The Tenth Amendment had a big impact for a redundancy. I have plenty of reliable sources. You need to show yours.
The Schechters weren't just prosecuted for selling one sick chicken (which they probably didn't know about according to another excellent source, Amity Schlaes). Most of the charges were for violating rules requiring "straight killing." Under straight killing customers couldn't pick the chickens they wanted; they had to stick their hands in a coop and take the first chicken to stop by. The justices laughed at the practice. If such a law was somehow enacted today, it would be struck down. Imagine going to a grocery store and not being allowed to pick the fruit and vegetibles you prefer. The 1935 was the last word on the NIRA and constitutional rights.
I noticed that you didn't disagree with any of the other examples of rule violations I mentioned (NOR, NPOV, Failed Verification, quoting rhetoric, undue weight, manual of style, etc.) Given the great concern about NOR, you should remove the block quote and Isaiah Berlin's editorial column, which is also original research.
When it comes to rule violations, the subarticle is a target rich environment. About a year ago Rjensen stated the only rule enforced consistently: "There is an entire article on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt that has details on charges he was pro-big business, anti-business, fascist, anti-Jewish etc." If we write anything that doesn't reflect well on the New Deal we're supposed to go elsewhere. LesLein (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Les, you don´t get much response because everything has been discussed excessively on this discussion page (please see the archives) and several forums [1], [2]. When editors (whatever the reason) don`t get together on something they ask for third opinion input. We did that at the fringe theories noticebard and at the original research noticeboard. All the editors were opposing your assumptions.
After convincing no one you are still posting lengthy essays full of original research and a few references to sources that don´t even briefly touch the topic. Additionally you are making wild accusations.
Let us put it straight. If you could provide evidence that the cited source is false and FDR actually never said the FDR quote we would erase it. If you could provide a historian who says that the FDR quote was a pack of lies we would add that. If you can not provide any more than original research we can only agree to disagree. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the fringe theory noticeboard, you always leave off its sequel, the admin noticeboard. Here is the key part:
SPhilbrick, you have a point, though I hate to admit it of course. That someone wouldn't have a life because they post at length is, by the way, really a personal attack. I'm going to strike my earlier comment, just having reread that FRINGE discussion, which was marked "resolved" by an editor who was seriously involved in that discussion. Perhaps an RfC is the way to go, or a couple of them with some pointed, individual questions. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Drmies is an administrator. He thought the discussion at the fringe noticeboard was resolved unfairly, which it was. The consensus at the admin noticeboard was that I wasn't pushing a fringe theory. The discussion of a personal attach was referring to Dave Dial, who initiated the fringe theory nonsense. He's also engaged in wikihounding against me. The fact that you never criticized some of his behavoiur says plenty. If you still think I'm pushing a fringe theory submit another complaint. Just let me know the same day. BTW, if you read the fringe theory article you will see that it is a perfect fit for the Roosevelt block quote. It is original research (FDR is the book's author), it violates NPOV (quoting the most partisan person involved in the discussion), and it fails verification being a misquote. Unless the Supreme Court's decision means nothing, along with FDR's private statements, the claim was false.
I don't get a response because you have no valid response. The fact that a handful of liberals here and on the fringe and NOR noticeboard are overly protective towards a sacred cow doesn't prove anything. Rjensen said that the Schechter decision did not mention the Bill of Rights. It did. You said that FDR obviously wasn't referring to the entire Bill of Rights. He was. Everyone said that the Tenth Amendment doesn't protect individual rights. It does. You now say that the Tenth Amendment is redundant without explaining why the Supreme Court took the 2011 Bond case. You make these claims with absolute certainty and never acknowledge when you're wrong. All of my sources here are excellent (Currie, Supreme Court, Schlaes).
My source that the FDR block quote is wrong is unimpeachable: Franklin D. Roosevelt. Read the speech at the current reference's link or the official FDR papers I referenced earlier. Fascism and violation of constitutional rights are separate topics in the actual article, presented in a different order. I've provided highly credible sources (Feuer, Ickes, Currie, Supreme Court) that both parts of FDR's claims are false.
I don't normally spend much time on Wikipedia, so when I do write something it is when I have time to spare. Also, there's a lot wrong with the subarticle that no one has addressed (the court's Bond decision; NPOV's rule against directly quoting a participant in a dispute; the quotation rule against quoting rhetoric, etc.) I thought about how to submit a general complaint, but the subarticle has so much wrong I would have to either prepare a whitepaper or submit multiple complaints and risk charges of forum shopping. The best option would be to propose the subarticle for deletion, if that's possible. Is anyone interested in mediation or another approach? Let's think about it. If we go that way, let's schedule it in a manner that's convenient for everyone. LesLein (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The closing decision at the Admin noticeboard was "I hope that RJensen or some other simpatico wikipedian can either get the new editor up to speed contributing somewhat more useful content on 20th Century history or else steer him towards matters in which he has greater expertise." As every new user you are not really capable of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would be wise to contact someone at [3] and expect rather advice than support. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

New Deal or WW2?[edit]

I think most historians agree with FDR that Dr New Deal had been replaced by Dr Win the War. Most of the reforms mentioned here under WW2 were promoted by conservatives, not New Dealers. I think they should be in the United States home front during World War II article Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes and no. See comments here (including some of my own). I haven't read the current revision in the article so I don't know which reforms you mean when you say that they were promoted by conservatives vs. new dealers. And let's also remember that what we think of as "conservatives" today were isolationist pre-WWII, so it's not strictly correct to attribute pre-war buildup reforms to conservatives writ large. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I refer to laws passed after 1941 re domestic affairs. By the way, half the liberals (on domestic issues) were isolationists too, and the southern conservatives-on-domestic issues were often internationalists. Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
As I mention in the reddit thread, talking about pre-war buildup vs. new deal spending is a matter of degree. Both are fiscal shocks from government spending, one considerably larger than the other. We can and should get the history right on this (see Vernon, Romer and Gordon for 3 good resources on the subject with different views), but we're still comparing two fiscal shocks. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Rjensen is correct in terms of time periods, I believe. In terms of liberals, moderates, conservatives, I do believe the political spectrum has changed/evolved, and FDR had much to do with that. Also, I think most historians would agree that FDR may have saved the nation with his programs, even omitting the results one way or the other. Many Americans in the midwest(especially farm states) were ready to give up on democratic capitalism, and many thinkers throughout America(and the world) thought it was dead and only Communism or Fascism would survive. Even before the Great Depression many farmers were gathering together and hanging sheriffs and/or judges, and if not for drastic change in Washington, Communism was already a planted seed there. In any case, here we are. Dave Dial (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
All =I propose is this: move the following section to Homefront because it fits better there and historians don't usually call them part of New Deal :
Despite conservative domination of Congress during the early 1940s, a number of progressive measures supported by business in the name of efficiency and safety were legislated. The Coal Mines Inspection and Investigation Act of 1941 significantly reduced fatality rates in the coal-mining industry, ref>Curtis E. Harvey, Coal in Appalachia: an economic analysis /ref> while the Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act of 1942 provided family allowances for dependents of enlisted men of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, while emergency grants to States were authorized that same year for programs for day care for children of working mothers. In 1944, pensions were authorized for all physically or mentally helpless children of deceased veterans regardless of the age of the child at the date the claim was filed or at the time of the veteran's death, provided the child was disabled at the age of sixteen and that the disability continued to the date of the claim. The Public Health Service Act, which was passed that same year, expanded Federal-State public health programs, and increased the annual amount for grants for public health services. ref>"Social Security Online". Ssa.gov. Retrieved April 5, 2012.  /ref> In response to the March on Washington Movement led by A. Philip Randolph, Roosevelt promulgated Executive Order 8802 in June 1941, which established the President's Committee on Fair Employment Practices (FEPC) "to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination" so that "there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin." ref name="ReferenceA">The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II by William H. Chafe /ref> The Community Facilities Act of 1941 (the Lanham Act) provided federal funds to defense-impacted communities for the building of recreational facilities, water and sanitation plants, hospitals, day care centers, schools, and houses, ref June Axinn and Herman Levin, Social Welfare: A History of the American Response to Need, Second Edition /ref while the Emergency Maternity and Infant Care Program, introduced in March 1943, provided free maternity care and medical treatment during an infant’s first year “for the wives and children of military personnel in the four lowest enlisted pay grades.” [ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XwV9D4-Rp5EC&pg=PA98&dq=Emergency+Maternity+and+Infant+Care+Program+March+1943&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ge6xU4SnMceUO6CmgdgG&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Emergency%20Maternity%20and%20Infant%20Care%20Program%20March%201943&f=false ] Rjensen (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I think it's probably unnecessary to have a separate page for the Second New Deal if its in-depth discussion happens on this page. Trevor1324 (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Historians often make the distinction of a "Second New Deal" and so it ought to be covered. Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, but the New Deal's page discusses the Second New Deal far more than its own article, so there's no real reason to have it. Clicking on the Second New Deal's article is just a waste of time, and a redirect to this article's section on it would probably be more appropriate, unless the Second New Deal article was expanded. Trevor1324 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)