Talk:New Deal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateNew 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, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Deal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Long[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but this article feels very long to read. It's a complicated and complex topic, but there is no need to tell the story in one giant article. --Buffaboy talk 05:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Buffaboy: Agreed. This is 200k and 14,000 words long. I would like to cut this down to 10,000. Maybe the historiography section can be spun off. Considering my options. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep the historiography--it's essential for students writing term papers. Better = spin off WW2, which is usually NOT included in major surveys of New Deal Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Unfortunately, while you wrote this, I was in the midst of spinning off the 'historiography and evaluation of New Deal policies' section. It now has a new article, here. Can always G7. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
For serious users the historiography section is the most useful -it tells what historians think about it. Casual readers will ignore it. Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
So does it deserve an article of its own? It's some 5,200 words of this 14,000 page. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I am assuming that readers will read the sections that interest them. I can't imagine many people reading all the paragraphs. So no I do not think it is "too long." But I did cut out sections that had little to sday about the New Deal (eg court packing) and are better covered elsewhere. Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
May what we can split off is the economics section -- only people with advanced work in economics will be interested. Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Alright. Moved to my userspace if needed for further use. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The New Deal was mostly an economic programm. Moving only the economic part of the evaluation doesn´t feel right. If necessary the whole evaluation should be moved into an a new article. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
"Farm and rural programs", "Works of Art and Music" and "World War II and full employment" can be trimmed or preferably moved to a new article. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation[edit]

In the article New Deal, the majority of the information in this article was relevant to the article topic and did not distract from the main point. For example, the article talks about the origins of the New Deal and how the New Deal was implemented. The article even evaluates all the New Deal policies Also, the article talked about the end goal of the New Deal and how that goal was going to be accomplished. Rather that being distracting the article draws the readers attention by talking about every aspect the New Deal had to offer.

Lokeo122 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Lokeo122

Did the New Deal have a left wing?[edit]

over in another article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States&oldid=831354747 states USER:Malik Shabazz on 20 March 2018 stated, "outside of John Birch Society members, I think it's hard to find anybody who would describe any part of the New Deal as "left-wing". I disagree. Lots of historians argue the New Deal had a left wing, typically locating its base in New York City, the Federal Writers Project, the CIO, urban blacks etc. Here is some evidence: 1) Steve Fraser, Gary Gerstle (1989): the closing off in the 1940s of a social democratic initiative that the left wing of the New Deal and progressive elements of the labor movement had nurtured since the mid--1930s. 2) Thomas Doherty - 2013 The gesture was classic FDR, showing sympathy for the [Spanish] Republican cause, shoring up his left wing, and not lifting a finger for tangible help. 3) David Stebenne, in US NEWS Feb 2016: Re Dem party candidate debate: To Bernie Sanders, “progressive” evokes the spirit of the left wing of the New Deal coalition. 4) Karen Ferguson, "Black Politics in New Deal Atlanta" (2003): teachers, economists, and lawyers, and most of them under forty-five years of age, this group of "social engineers," as some of them described themselves, became a crucial element in the New Deal's progressive left wing, which sought to overturn the South's extreme racial and class exploitation. ... Members of the Washington DC 'black cabinet' were the best known of this group. 5) Henry L. Feingold, "Zion in America: The Jewish Experience from Colonial Times to the present" (2013): It was the welfare-state aspect of the New Deal, rather than Roosevelt's foreign policy, which attracted the Jewish voter. The war and the holocaust tended to reinforce the left-wing political sentiments of many Jewish voters. 6) Julia L. Mickenberg (2006) in the words of Ellen Schrecker, as “the unofficial left wing of the New Deal,” with supporters of the party active in labor organizations, artist groups, reform movements, and the New Deal administration itself. 7) Jerrold Hirsch - 2004 on Federal Writers Project: New Dealers and other left-wing groups welcomed an alliance of all liberals and leftists. 8) Hirano, and Snyder "Journal of Politics" Feb 2007: the Democratic Party co-opted the left-wing policy position beginning with the passage of the New Deal agenda. 9) Robinson and Eisenstadt, "Prospects". Jan1997: In 1940 Ralph Bunche interviewed Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black about Southern race relations as part of research for the Carnegie Corporation. The two men were both on the left wing of the New Deal, were suspicious of capitalism, and skeptical of the legal system's ability to bring about social change. 10) "A Companion to Franklin D. Roosevelt" (2011): Hillman led in organizing the CIO Political Action Committee (CIO-PAC). With the participation of activists from left-wing unions, which had returned to a pro-FDR stance, the CIO-PAC played a critical role in In mobilizing the working-class vote for Roosevelt [in 1944]. Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)