Talk:New Deal/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Copyvio

I reverted this edit because of obvious copyright violations, check this. - DonCalo (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There are several cut-and-paste sections in that edit, from different sources or at least different parts of the same source. I have reviewed some of the editor's contribs and posted at WP:CCI already. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I can reword the information I added at some point and re-add it, if you feel that is appropriate. zictor23 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
On another note, I don't think that all that information about the Food Stamp Program was added by myself.zictor23 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
there was no copyvio....the cited sources copied Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

FDR Block Quote

Roosevelt’s block quote has multiple issues. The first problem is that it fails verification. The quote uses sentences in the wrong sequence. FDR first made a general denial that he was violating people’s rights. That is where he told people to ask themselves if their constitutional rights were violated. He told people to go through the Bill of Rights “provision by provision.” All of this occurs on page 49 of the book on FDR's fireside chats.

After talking about individual liberty, FDR talked about economic measures. Near the end of the speech (page 51), he denied being influenced by fascism or communism, saying the New Deal is based on practical measures.

The Manual of Style says, “The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced.” As presented in the article, the quote is out of sequence and conflates two separate parts of the speech.

The guidance essay on quotations states “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.” Since the FDR block quote contains a rhetorical question, it should be removed (this also applies to the Berlin quote, which is a rhetorical statement (figure of speech)).

Everyone who has been here all year knows that on at least occasions FDR said, without providing specifics, that he was implementing programs based on what fascist and Soviet governments were doing. As late as 1939 FDR expressed sympathy for Mussolini. As late as 1943 he privately proposed reforming India “somewhat on the Soviet line.”

Roosevelt’s claim that he did not violate constitutional rights is also false, though not a lie. It was repudiated by the Supreme Court. In its Schechter decisionthe court unanimously ruled that the NRA asserted, “extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment” New Dealers expected the NRA to be struck down; they were surprised by the court’s strict construction.

The Fringe Theory page says that “While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation.” The FDR block quote is misleading. Other editors revert attempts to provide full contextualization by quoting what FDR said at other times or what the Supreme Court ruled. Consensus cannot overrule the Supreme Court or present misleading information as fact.

The best that can be done is to paraphrase Roosevelt’s claims along with a paraphrase of his private statements and a summary of the Supreme Court’s Schechter ruling. LesLein (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When Roosevelt asked "Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice?" he obviously talked about United_States_Constitution#Individual_rights. The Court held that the NIRA provisions were in excess of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. That was a question of competence not of individual rights. Furthermore the commerce clause interpretation in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States was rejected shortly afterwards by the Supreme Court ending the Lochner era. The cause for the demise of the Lochner era was an evolving judicial perspective on the validity of governmental regulation. To take Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States as an evidence for fascism is wrong in every single way.
There is a funny story behind that court decision. The (Jewish) Schechters apparently voted for Roosevelt every time he ran because they believed that if Roosevelt had not solved the problems of the Depression, the U.S. could have gone the way of Nazi Germany. [1] --Pass3456 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not see anything misleading or fringe about the quote. It faithfully represents Roosevelt's reply to his opponents, even if it argues against two complaints rather than one. The "guidance" is actually an essay and provides advice. But I do not see how a rhetorical question should not be allowed when it is clear what is being said. Your FDR was a fascist spin is based on OR, and weight requires that we pay little attention to it. TFD (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with TFD. The quote is a well-prepared historical document that carries a lot of weight. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with TFD too. --Pass3456 (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Pass3456:

On page 49 of the fireside chat Roosevelt asks listeners to "Turn to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which I have solemnly sworn to maintain and under which your freedom rests secure. Read each provision of that Bill of Rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered a single jot of these great assurancesBold text."

So Roosevelt meant all of the first ten amendments. The highest court in the country unanimously disagreed with him. According to Brinkley New Dealers expected the ruling. They were relieved the NRA was gone. FDR may have been relieved himself. They were upset about the strictness of the court's ruling.

So Roosevelt's claim about not violating constitutional rights is false, though not a lie.

TFD:

When I first pointed out that the court ruled that the NRA violated constitutional rights, an editor said that it had nothing to do with fascism. Now they go together. Which one is it? The topics can't be unrelated one time and related another time.

It's true that the quotations essay is only guidance. However, for an encyclopedia it should go without saying that false statements should allow for refutation or be removed. As the essay says "There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles." Roosevelt acknowledged that radical European governments influenced his economic programs in multiple private conversations. Those quotes are from prominent secondary sources, such as Lewis Feuer at a Johns Hopkins publication. The highest court in the country ruled that one of his key programs violated constitutional rights.

The essay is only guidance, but neutral point of view is policy. It says: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." The tone of the subarticle is basically "Nothing to see here. Move along." Roosevelt was a participant in a heated dispute that scholars write about 80 years after the fact.

I never said Roosevelt was a fascist. Please provide a direct quote from my article edits before repeating this claim.) I quoted Roosevelt saying that his economic programs were somewhat influenced by fascist programs or similar to fascist programs. One scholar, James Q. Whitman, said that by the late 1980s it was "almost routine" for historians to list similarities. He provides plenty of examples.

Speaking of original research, the article on the subject says that speeches are primary sources.

rjensen:

The editor of the fireside chat book provides good background, but the quote presented in the article is wrong. It changes the sequence of sentences without telling the reader. The ellipses represent two omitted pages, concealing the fact that Roosevelt changed subjects several times. Can you identify a style guide available on-line that says text in quotations can be moved around like that? Or that ellipses can hide a change of subjects? The Wiki style manual certainly doesn't permit this. Who provided the block quotes?

The speech itself is original research. It was a contemporaneous document, not a historical document.

Everyone:

The Disputed-inline template "indicates that at least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem." I don't need consensus to insert it.

The block quote has some tests: Did the New Deal violate constitutional rights? Was the New Deal influenced by radical European governments? Unless consensus can overrule the Supreme Court, and there is evidence that Roosevelt lied in the private conversations about what influenced him, the answers are yes. The article must mention this (and Roosevelt's private statements) or remove the quote. LesLein (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

whose Constitutional rights were violated by FDR? LesLein thinks there were two such people (the Schechter brothers who were deprived of their right to sell sick chickens) but the Supreme Court did not say that & we need a RS saying this. Rjensen (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Disputed-inline should be used when there is a Wikipedia:Verifiability problem. But there is no doubt that the source containes that quote. So it is not a verifiability problem. Aditionally the case has been disputed and no other user agreed with LesLein. So I guess the template can be removed. --Pass3456 (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
"Neutral point of view" "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." It does not mean we should give equal weight to all views, or even mention all views. As Rjensen mentions, the NRA was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Bill of Rights. The Court did not find that the Bill of Rights protected the right to sell sick chickens but the Constitution prevented the federal government from stopping the sale of sick chickens that did not enter inter-state commerce. TFD (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Page 91 of this book edited by rjensen says that there was more to the Schechter case than sick chickens. There were also issues concerning separation of powers and Congress exceeding its authority. It says the government never proved that the Schechters ever sold a sick chicken. FWIW, the book also says that the NRA had "nearly dictatorial" regulatory power over business and represented "latent socialism." If I wrote that it would be fringe theory.

According to Amity Schlaes, other charges against the Schechters included letting customers pick their chickens and providing low prices to customers than what the government wanted. The prosecution went on and on about the Schechters wanting to be competitive (the horror). She said that there was a chicken that had trouble laying eggs. The Schechters would have a difficult time learning of this before the sale.

At my talk page rjensen said that "The Supreme Court never mentioned the Bill of Rights" in the Schechter case. He told me to read the Wikipedia article on the case. I did. Its categories include "United States Tenth Amendment case law." I followed a link to the actual decision. It says that the government's "assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment."

As we all know the Tenth Amendment is one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that Roosevelt asked listeners to review. So everyone can relax. The Supreme Court agrees with me, so the disputed template can be revived and the Schechter ruling can be referenced. In terms of constitutional rights, the Supreme Court's rulings are the ultimate reliable source. As far as NPOV is concerned, I am supported by the most "significant view" possible. To answer rjensen's question, the Schechter's constitutional rights were violated. The New Deal tried to ruin their lives for letting customers pick the chickens they wanted at competitive prices. Jacob Maged was jailed for charging a low price to press suits. Some criminals. LesLein (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

To correct your statements:
The Court held that the NIRA provisions were in excess of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. That was a question of competence not of individual rights since similar legislation on the state level would have been consistent with the constitution. :Furthermore the commerce clause interpretation in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States was rejected shortly afterwards by the Supreme Court ending the Lochner era. From Todays point of view (today in the meaning of since 1937) the Schlechter decision was based on a false interpretation of the constitution.
The (Jewish) Schechters voted for Roosevelt every time he ran [2]. NRA intervention against selling sick chicken can`t have been a big deal for them. --Pass3456 (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The actual point is: I do not see anything misleading or fringe about the quote. It faithfully represents Roosevelt's reply to his opponents ... Your FDR was a fascist spin is based on OR, and weight requires that we pay little attention to it., [3], [4]. --Pass3456 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The Schechter opinion explicitly states that "Those [government officials] who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the [295 U.S. 495, 529] imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment- 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'" In other words, the NIRA violated the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause often go together. The Commerce Clause is often used to justify federal government regulation of the economy in order to avoid charges that the federal government violated the Tenth Amendment; if the law is out of clause's scope then it violates the Tenth Amendment. Lochner didn't mention the Tenth Amendment or the Commerce Clause; it was based on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The Schechters succeeded exercising the Tenth Amendment as an individual right.
No one, including FDR, was surprised when the court struck down the NIRA. If court ruled that Schechter was wrong, why didn't FDR revive the NIRA? Lochner was on the way out before the Schechter ruling. Provide a source saying that the Supreme Court said that Schechter was wrongly decided. I'll bet that there are none. The Schechters sold kosher chickens. They were deeply offended by the claim that they sold unfit chickens. That was one of the reasons that they appealed. The government performed autopsies on three chickens. There was one "eggbound" chicken; eggs were lodged inside the chicken. There was no way the Schecters could have known this. The government never proved this charge.
The Schechters were charged with violating the NRA's rule requiring "straight killing." This rule prohibited customers from selecting the chickens they want; they had to reach in the coop and pick the nearest one. At oral arguments the court laughed out loud when this practice was described. They would do the same today. Let's assume the government makes a rule saying that grocers couldn't let customers pick the fruit they wanted, just the nearest item at the display. It would be an absurdity. Amity Schlaes obtained a note saying that the Schechter's closest living descendent probably voted for FDR. As far as the constitution is concerned it makes no difference who they voted for.
The Schechter article lists the case in the category of "United States Tenth Amendment Case Law." If you don't believe this, you should remove it. Good luck with that. It is time to accept reality.
The article on Original Research lists speeches as an example of original research. NPOV prohibits undue weight to things such as Roosevelt's denial, which was definitively and unanimously rejected by the authority on constitutional rights. It says quotes from parties involved in a dispute should be avoided. Verifiability says that items, such as the block quote, that fail verification can't be used. Fringe theory says "Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation." FDR's claim certainly was controversial.
I have provided multiple secondary or tertiary sources for material you reverted. These include Garraty, Patel, Feuer, Payne, Waterman, Schivelbusch, Whitman, and probably others. If I attempt to use them again will you let them stand? (I already know your answer). I have requested a quote where I said that FDR was a fascist. I take it you can't find one. LesLein (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not a violation of a constitutional right to enact legislation that exceeds a level of government's authority. For example, Canadians had no "constitutional rights" until 1982, yet much of the proposed Canadian New Deal was found to be outside federal jurisdiction. Incidentally, Bush's Guantanamo justice system was found to violate the 5th or 14th amendment - that does not make him a fascist. TFD (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

See the Tenth Amendment and read the Schechter decision. The Schechter decision specifically and unanimously states that the NIRA violated the Tenth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Schechters won by claiming their Tenth Amendment rights. Canadian law had nothing to do with the decision. It is the block quote that uses violation of constitutional rights as the test of fascism; it wasn't my idea. As long as the quote is there, a response is required. Especially when the claim is wrong. Either remove the quote or permit a response. LesLein (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

We can't deal with LesLein 's argument until he cites the reliable secondary sources he is using. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't TFD have to provide a reliable secondary source for his statement above? Why didn't you require that editor to provide a reliable source for the statement that "As Rjensen mentions, the NRA was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Bill of Rights"? Is there any source for that? Can we now ignore TFD's arguments until sources are provided? Or are there two sets of rules?

Arthur Schlesinger wrote that the Supreme Court found the AAA in violation of the Tenth Amendment. We can now add Butler to the list of people whose rights were violated. There were others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no scholarship that says the 10th amendment guaranteed an individual right and in fact it merely confirms what was already in the Constitution. If you can find a view saying something different that relates to the sick chicken case, then please provide it. TFD (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
From the article on individual and group rights "In the United States, the Constitution outlines individual rights within the Bill of Rights." In other words, the Tenth Amendment covers individual rights. If it didn't the Schechters would have gone to jail. They were individuals. The Supreme Court supports my view. So do multiple scholars.
When will you provide a source? Quote a later decision that rejected the court's Schecter case reasoning. (Hint: Don't waste your time.) Maybe you can set the Supreme Court straight.
The Tenth Amendment has been used other times to protect individuals. According to the Bill of Rights article the Constitution's ratification was in jeopardy until the Massachusetts convention proposed amendments that "included a requirement for grand jury indictment in capital cases, which would form part of the Fifth Amendment, and an amendment reserving powers to the states not expressly given to the federal government, which would later form the basis for the Tenth Amendment." The Tenth Amendment has been to protect individual rights. It was crucial to the Constitution's ratification.
You wrote earlier "As Rjensen mentions, the NRA was not ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Bill of Rights." Do you really believe that? LesLein (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The NRA was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers AND because it usurped states rights. If a law is unconstitutional then anyone convicted under it goes free. Everyone here is reading reliable sources and I think LesLein should do that too instead of relying on his private jurisprudential ideas. It's amazing what's in the legal textbooks. Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make the argument the sick chicken law was struck down because of the 10th amendment, the 10th amendment was part of the Bill of Rights, therefore the sick chicken law violated individual rights, you need a source that says that, otherwise it is original research. All federations divide powers between different levels of government - that does not mean that all federations guarantee individual rights. The U.S. had already divided those powers. See U.S. v. Darby for an explanation of the amendment. TFD (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What reliable source has Rjensen cited? At my talk page he wrote that Schechter never mentioned the Bill of Rights. Rjensen still hasn't provided a reliable source for that claim and never will. The new excuse is that the Tenth Amendment isn't an "individual" right. Neither the main text of the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights uses the term "individual." It always refers to "the people" instead. This wasn't a collective right. Rjensen can't quote a legal textbook that says the Tenth Amendment isn't an individual right. Nor does he provide a single source that says that the Constitution distinguishes between individual and other types of rights. Once again we have to take his word for it. The Tenth Amendment specifically mentions "the people," not just states. Read Schechter and the Bill of Rights.

At least TFD provides one source; but it doesn't support the argument. Darby doesn't mention individual rights or the Schechter decision. It did make the famous comment about the Tenth Amendment being only a "truism." Tenth Amendment jurisprudence has revived since then. Check the Printz decision. The majority decision cites the Schechter decision favorably. There are others. Regarding the statement: "All federations divide powers between different levels of government - that does not mean that all federations guarantee individual rights": In the U.S. all state officials are bound by oath to uphold the federal constitution. That means they have to guarantee individual rights.

The Wikipedia article on individual and group rights cites the Bill of Rights as examples of individual rights. The whole "individual rights" claim is a red herring. In his fireside chat that's the source of this dispute, Roosevelt said "Read each provision of that Bill of Rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered a single jot of these great assurances." He didn't add "But stop after the Ninth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment doesn't protect your individual rights."

I can provide an excellent reference that the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights. But first I want to see a list of all the other excuses for keeping the block quote from the fireside chat. No moving the goal post this time. LesLein (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You said above FDR was "violating people’s rights." You have failed to explain which right he was violating. The basis of the decision was the NRA was ultra vires and would have been regardless of the 10th amendment. In every federation laws that are ultra vires are void. That does not mean for example that Imperial Germany guaranteed individual rights because different powers were assigned to different levels of government. TFD (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The right was the 10th Amendment. FDR said to check "each provision" of the Bill of Rights. He didn't exclude any part. The Supreme Court specifically ruled that NIRA violated the 10th Amendment. That means that the Schechters' constitutional rights were violated. I have mentioned this many times without receiving a quote from any source indicating otherwise. Other than Darby, you have yet to provide any source that says that the 10th Amendment isn't a constitutional right or that it is a dead letter. The court has revived the 10th Amendment for some of its rulings. There is an award winning author with impeccable academic credentials who states that the 10th Amendment is an individual right, and one of the most important. Please provide some sources and quotes. LesLein (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

David P. Currie is the scholar I mentioned above. He was a distinguished constitutional law professer. He clerked for a famous New Dealer. His book explains why federalsim (Tenth Amendment) is one of the best protections of individual rights (page 560). He also indicates that Schechter was decided correctly.

A news item on this year's Supreme Court docket identified an even better reference. Carol Bond committed a despicable act. But the worst criminal has rights. She claimed that her federal prosecution violated her Tenth Amendment rights. She won unanimously.

The Supreme Court statedthat "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." It further stated that "Federalism's limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism ..." So the Tenth Amendment protects individual rights.

The Supreme Court cited Schechter as a precedent for its decision. Schechter has been cited many times since 1935, often in cases where states aren't a party.

Besides Currie, my experts include Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. I haven't seen any for the other position. These justices represent appointments by all presidents from Reagan through Obama. It will be difficult for any editor to say that he or she knows more than the Supreme Court.

The FDR block quote violates policies on NPOV, NOR, and Verificability. It violates the Manual of Style and Quotation guidance. It is not at all factual. It needs to go. LesLein (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that says the New Deal violated individual rights, otherwise it is just synthesis. In any case I disagree with you interpretation of your new sources. 20:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh come off it. As far back as 1935 the Supreme Court ruled that the New Deal violated the Tenth Amendment. It was the government prosecuting individuals. No state was involved in the Schechter case, so their individual rights were being protected. There has never been a state called the Schechter Brothers. The Tenth Amendment hasn't changed since it was ratified. When the Supreme Court said that the Tenth Amendment violated Bond's individual rights it cited Schechter.
The first argument defending the block quote was that the Schechter decision didn't mention the Bill of Rights. When that proved false (after a five second search) the claim was that Roosevelt wasn't referring to the entire Bill of Rights. It turned out he told listeners to check "each provision." The next argument was that the Supreme Court repudiated the reasoning in the Schechter ruling. It never did. The last argument was that the Tenth Amendment doesn't protect individual rights. That's also pure fiction. The funny thing is that most of these claims can be easily refuted for anyone with access to the sources.
I've provided plenty of sources. You haven't. You need to provide a good source that shows that: (1) Roosevelt wasn't referring to all of the Bill of Rights; and (2) the Tenth Amendment doesn't protect individual rights. In the end, the Supreme Court will take precedence over consensus.
By the way, in 1935 Roosevelt's Department of Justice reviewed the Schechter Brother's business. They determined that the Schechters business was too small to have any impact on interstate commerce. So the Roosevelt Administration knew it lacked the constitutional authority to put the Schechters in prison. LesLein (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Synthesis is not applicable to Talk pages. The link says "A talk page is the right place to claim that something in an article is SYNTH. The policy does not forbid inferences on talk pages that would be SYNTH if made in an article." So even if my arguments did represent synthesis, it doesn't matter here.
The link on what synthesis is not says that "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." The Roosevelt quote fits that, assuming a speech is a reliable source. The statements are two pages apart and address two different subjects.
So the block quote now violates guidance on Quotations, Synthesis, and the Manual of Style. It violates NOR, NPOV, and Verifiability policies. LesLein (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is whether we can quote FDR saying "I will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it 'Fascism', sometimes 'Communism', sometimes 'Regimentation', sometimes 'Socialism'. But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.... Plausible self-seekers and theoretical die-hards will tell you of the loss of individual liberty. Answer this question out of the facts of your own life. Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice?" LesLein says it's "false" -- which sentence is false? The SYNTH rules are for editors not historic figured. I think the readers have a right to know what FDR actually said. Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Source for statement attributed to Garraty

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 [5], [6]. 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 [7] and expect rather advice than support. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

New Deal or WW2?

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)

Why is class coinciousness harmful?

Listed under harmful effects of the New Deal there's "caused a growth of class consciousness among farmers and manual workers (Billington and Ridge)[136]". Better dead than red or what's going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.65.171 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The authors do not say. That is the problem with using tertiary sources. We do not know how widely held the views expressed are or in this case what they mean. TFD (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Billington and Ridge are leading historians and so their analysis is worthy of attention. The question is not whether or not class consciousness is good or bad, it's whether significant numbers of observers said so. They had reference to conservatives (they are liberals themselves). Conservatives then (and now) decried the growth of class consciousness, liberals then ("progressives" now) emphasize class consciousness, as exemplified by labor unions, or "Move On". Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge

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)
  • No, I'd oppose a merge, first on size grounds (this article is 183 KB already; and if the proposal simply envisages blanking and redirecting the other page, I'd be opposed to it as a back-door deletion), and second, as the Second New Deal had a different character (meeting far more opposition, for example) and is notable in its own right, it'd make more sense to split the Second New Deal stuff from here (leaving just a summary) and move it over there. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
PS: In fact the same could be said of the "Recession of 1937", and "WWII and full employment" sections (the latter already mentioned above). Both could be summarized and have the excess stuff moved to the respective main articles. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would also oppose a merge. There's no reason a good summary section here with a separate article wouldn't be superior. This page is already long, it's a significant event with more than enough sourcing. Protonk (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that solution does make more sense. I'm not super attached to the idea of merging them anyway, I just thought the current set-up was subpar.Trevor1324 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The Second New Deal section is rather short. I don´t see how it could be significantly shortened while still covering the story. I oppose the idea of a summary section. On the other hand I would not deny that Second New Deal could be a lot longer (Arthur M. Schlesinger wrote 768 pages about it) and that excess stuff would be fine for a separate Second New Deal. --Pass3456 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

-I agree strongly with the immediately above: due to the size, significance, and difference in nature of the Second New Deal, if there's any talk here about merging the Second New Deal's page wholly into the first, it can mean only one thing: not nearly enough has been written about it. There's actually something of a paradox, here: The New Deal, as a whole, certainly includes the Second New Deal (well, I'd say), and material about the 2nd phase should be on The New Deal page. However, The Second New Deal was also a distinct entity, one of the most significant and successful legislative movements, distinct from the 1933-4 New Deal in several respects, and...it's too big not to have a page of its own. I suppose a modestly briefer summary of the 2nd New Deal could be included in this page, while maintaining the full 'Second New Deal' page independently, but ultimately, regardless of how the chips fall down, I can't support the submerging of the Second New Deal into merely a section of the first--it was too big, too important, shifted the Overton Window so much more than the original New Deal, is relevant politically to Hughie Long's demagoguery, and, well, certainly produced more enduring political shifts, being both the point at which FDR shifted decisively to Social Liberalism (and created Social Security, did Financial Regulation properly, etc) and thus made the dominant wing of the Democratic Party ultimately Liberal AND, because of the lack of ambiguity in that shift, presumably played a role in the almost semi-formal division of the party in 1937 by going farther left than Nance Garner was willing to tolerate. It all connects quite closely to the Supreme Court fight that year, also--no, it's just too big a historical shift to be mashed into a page headlined by the First New Deal. It'd be like combining Nixon's 1971 and (much different) 1974 Healthcare plans as one subject (only this is a much larger and more important pair of subjects, to be clear). -CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.248.77 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 19:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Deal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 07:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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

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)


JUST A QUICK QUESTION. HOW DID THIS NEW SET OF IDEOLOGIES HELP MINORITIES DURING THIS TIME? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culmitch (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

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

I believe this is an expertly crafted article that does not deviate from the main points at all. The sources are accurate and well documented and the information is presented in a thought out, factual manner. RML5989 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is incredibly well written and stays focused on the main points of the New Deal. Giving examples in each point, and expressing its meaning. This article has strong head sections, reliable sources, and is very well structured. RyanPresleyLong (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Deal/Archive_6&oldid=1181049442"