Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Hello, I do not wish to edit this page but rather request that it be upgraded. Upgrade means to be transformed into a featured article as opposed to just a good one. LandLubber49 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It would need to go through a successful nomination at WP:Featured article candidates for that to happen. This would require reviews from multiple people who would assess (among other things) the article's prose, sourcing, and media used. See WP:Featured article criteria for more. I personally am not sure it's ready for that yet. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You'll regret it, I assure you. EEng 00:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Backlash from Congress for pursuing Second Bill of Rights by blending powers

My article on FDR and the backlash from Congress to his blending powers is now published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Policy History. Based on my research, I propose a couple sentences be added to the discussion on the Second Bill of Rights.

Roosevelt pushed legislation to implement his Second Bill of Rights by detailing significant teams of Executive Branch staff to friendly Democrat-controlled Senate Committees. The practice delivered mixed result, but it highlighted for Congress the need to bolster their own committee staff. Congress quickly adopted the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to block the Executive Branch from detailing staff to their committees, while adding staff to Congress's payroll to support it's committees. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089803062000024X ] Billfarley (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

FDR has an honorary degree

In 1939, FDR visited Queen's University to receive an honorary degree. This should be included in some regard.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15525#axzz1TDAI50K3

He had something like 31 honorary degrees (Eleanor had 36.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

Change end term from April 12, 1945 to January 20, 1949 Tyujgo (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Tyujgo Tyujgo (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m here just waiting for someone to change the error for me FDR died on August 1, 1952  Tyujgo (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done that's false; he actually died on April 12, 1945. This has already been well-established. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021 (2)

he died in his office at the White House in 1945 Harry s Truman was the 33 president 47.138.36.205 (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

FDR's last words slight correction

It currently says that FDR's last words were: "I have a terrific headache." According to https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/the-quiet-final-hours-of-franklin-d-roosevelt his last words were "I have a terrific pain in the back of my head." (I think it was Cary Grant who said "I have a terrific headache.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amenuensis (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV around FDR's attitude to Jews and the Holocaust

We have a paragraph starting:

After Kristallnacht in 1938, Roosevelt helped expedite Jewish immigration from Germany and Austria, and allowed German citizens already in the United States to stay indefinitely. However, he was prevented from accepting further Jewish immigrants, particularly refugees, by the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, and antisemitism among voters.[340]

Looking at just a very few of our available sources for starters [1][2][3][4][5][6] the full paragraph is way too flattering. --Chumchum7 (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7, Given the number of reliable sources discussing this, I'd think that at least a single sentence about this controversy (i.e., FDR's antisemitism, to put it bluntly) would be WP:DUE here. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, it should go much further than a single sentence, to reflect the reliable sources' coverage of widespread controversy. It needs to include FDR's infamous response to the Polish Home Army's intelligence report from the Lubelskie region and Warsaw couriered by agent Jan Karski which informed America about the Holocaust. I have WP:BOLD changed the first line as it was plain wrong and had no citation; I have corrected and added citation to Times of Israel. --Chumchum7 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7, Fair enough - that's why I said at least one sentence. I'll be looking forward to your rewrite/expansion of the relevant content. The sentence you cite above is indeed quite wrong, as it obviously whitewashed FDR suggesting it was "not his fault". The sources I read while writing the article on the War Refugee Board and the Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews suggested that FDR at the very least was indifferent to the plight of the Jews in Europe, and his decisions to help (or not) were simply a cold political calculations on what would get him the most votes for the reelection. He helped a bit in the end, but only because he was shamed to do so by the public opinion (linked Report). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, thank you yes I understand and agree. --Chumchum7 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• For something this important let's keep the sourcing high-quality and scholarly. Too many of the sources linked above are opinion pieces, columns, and a seminar announcement. EEng 09:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, Agreed. There are many academic sources on this, although it seems there is no consensus on what was FDR's attitude ([7], [8]). From "The often bitter debate over FDR and the Holocaust has persisted because it speaks to contemporary political issues". But to portray him as a savior, as our article currently does, is not very balanced. I'll see if I have time to write an article about notable books, entirely dedicated to this, like the FDR and the Jews, The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust - there are actually others, but they may not be notable, those certainly are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Piotrus, after my recent adjustments it seems the 'savior myth' PPOV or even OR has been tempered and article balance has been improved - can you point out where any of it still occurs?
• EEng, I agree that sourcing excellence is our objective. In the meantime, rest assured the sources I have used here include the recognized mainstream historians themselves summarizing the same views that they have in their books; the journalistic publications are the first things I could get my hands on to go WP:FIXIT and are reliable secondary sources. FWIW I see them as a holding position for the time being, to be improved upon with the relevant books as soon as we have access to them. Speaking of which, do you have a copy of Smith so that we can attend to the dubious tag here? [9] The line currently attributes the president's actions to the notion that Americans were antisemites; this is not only a gross generalization about an entire country, it also discounts the personal responsibility of leaders (let alone people) for making their own decisions. I doubt Smith says it quite like that. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Chumchum7, For now, I need to read more on this. Hopefully, I'll find time to read and digest reviews for FDR and the Jews which are very numerous (I didn't even finish listing them there), then expand it from a stub. Then I'll revisit this article. In the meantime, I just wanted to note this is not a simple white and black issue, and it is probably best to avoid describing FDR simplistically either as savior or antisemite. On the side note, I wonder if his attitude of rough indifference (and realpolitik) has been analyzed through the evolving POV in the Holocaust studies that tends to see indifference (lack of action) as a form of antisemitism/Holocaust participation (and which is quite controversial, to say the least). PS. I just stubbed The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust , and it appears to be more critical of FDR. On the other hand, the title of Saving the Jews: FDR and the Holocaust, another book on the topic, suggests it is more friendly to FDR (but that book doesn't appear notable, based on the volume of reviews - or the lack of it - I am seeing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Piotrus As it stands now, it does not reflect any controversy amongst historians. Rather it promotes a particular point of view and relies heavily on an opinion piece in the LA Times, albeit one by an expert on the subject. On the other hand, HW Brand's biography of Roosevelt paints a slightly different picture; according to Brands, the quota for German immigrants had been filled the President went out of his way to extend visas for Jewish Germans on temporary stay. Additionally, Roosevelt's reluctance to bomb Auschwitz was partly motivated by a concern that it would lead to more deaths of Jews (Brands 381). It is also worth noting that Breitman and Lichtman argue in FDR and the Jews that Roosevelt's policy towards Holocaust refugees was better than that of Churchill or other Presidents vis a vis genocides. I am not saying Medoff is either right or wrong, but that his opinion is not necessarily embraced by the bulk of experts and that his opinion piece should not be cited as a source. --TheobaldShlegel (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliance on a single author?

Many of the lines used in the "Civil rights, internment, and the Holocaust" section cite an LA Times opinion article written by Rafael Medoff. Another line cites an article by The Times of Israel, commenting on a book by the same Rafael Medoff. I have no opposition to the content (or Medoff), but would it not be better to include higher quality sources, and by different viewpoints (authors) instead of a single source? (The La Times opinion article is cited more than any other source in that paragraph). Cantgetusername (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Cantgetusername, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for chiming in. Please see the section above where this is being discussed. In fact the paragraph doesn't rely on a single source. It has several sources and also cites Smith, twice, which until recently was afair the single source used - which was possibly the cause of the rather skewed paragraph. Hence the addition of Medoff to add another viewpoint. Yes it would be preferable to add Medoff's book aside from his article. We are waiting for someone to bring that - as well as the excerpt of the relevant part of Smith. It would be great if you could be that person. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 Whilst it does not rely on a single author, it does rely heavily on an opinion piece in the LA Times, which in my view probably should not be cited at all. More importantly, the section promotes a particular viewpoint held by some historians, neglecting to mention the contrary perspectives by HW Brands (prominent Roosevelt biographer). By doing so, it implies a consensus where there is a controversy. I go more into detail in the above section. --TheobaldShlegel (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)