Wouldn't it be pertinent in the critical reception of the New Deal to include that american nazis refered to it as the "Jew Deal"? C.Delacroix (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-03-31T23:05:00.000Z","author":"C.Delacroix","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-C.Delacroix-2011-03-31T23:05:00.000Z-German_American_Bund","replies":[]}}-->
Many researchers say FDR hurt the economy with his regulations,taxes and spending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-01-23T10:08:00.000Z","author":"Ericg33","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ericg33-2011-01-23T10:08:00.000Z-Where_is_the_research_on_the_FAILURE_of_the_New_Deal?","replies":[]}}-->
Someone should have a look at this article because some nonsense has been put in it. Probably it would be an idea to lock it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.178.184 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-03T21:21:00.000Z","author":"87.183.178.184","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-87.183.178.184-2010-02-03T21:21:00.000Z-Please_stop_that_vandalism...","replies":[]}}-->
A few edits ago, ==Reform== was changed to "When the cow jumped over the moon a nickle caused the world to turn to drugs." I don't get it.
We really need a reception section for this article!--Guugolpl0x (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-19T17:22:00.000Z","author":"Guugolpl0x","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Guugolpl0x-2009-02-19T17:22:00.000Z-Speaking_of_bias,_where_is_the_reception_section?","replies":[]}}-->
Someone more versed in using Wikipedia needs to take it upon her/himself to get this article in shape and protected. The Republicans in the U.S. are licking their wounds after Obama's amazing landslide victory (and the general "mkjoi" the American populace has given to Bush and his cronies) by trying to handicap the new Administration before they even get to work. Paramount to this effort is to re-write the history of the New Deal. Limbaugh and others are already referring to the financial situation in the U.S. as the "Obama Depression," and they've convinced the Ditto Heads among us that the concensus of historians is that the New Deal "prolonged the Great Depression." That is by no means the case. Most historians agree that it was a mixed bag, and that our leaders did what they thought was right at the time.
In the section of this article labeled "Prolonged/worsened the Depression," a good example of this rhetoric can be found. The survey cited in this section (citation 45 at the bottom) is actually of questionable rigor. The author himself states that he has no way of knowing whether he used a representative sample, and that's the whole point of doing such research! If someone is going to try and provide information in this Wiki article about what "most historians think" about the New Deal (and I think many will come away with that impression), he/she should at least try and find an article whose authors can provide us with some assurance that their data represent what "most historians think" about the New Deal. Doesn't that make sense?
At any rate, I'm sure millions of people around the world will be turning to Wikipedia to do their quick search refresher on the New Deal, and I'd hate to see it used to further spread propaganda. 67.164.84.120
07:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creed of hubris (talk • contribs)
I would not necessairly say that this article is "wrong" however there is no counter point to what is clearly a conservative view point with hand picked sources. This is fine as long as a more liberal interpretaion is presented as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.74.153 (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-11T13:04:00.000Z","author":"67.36.74.153","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-67.36.74.153-2009-02-11T13:04:00.000Z-Bias_in_this_article_is_extremely_destructive_right_now","replies":[]}}-->
"The Republicans in the U.S. are licking their wounds after Obama's amazing landslide victory" - bias much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.53 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-11-16T16:02:00.000Z","author":"69.171.161.53","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-69.171.161.53-2009-11-16T16:02:00.000Z-Bias_in_this_article_is_extremely_destructive_right_now","replies":[]}}-->
I agree with this criticism in every way. Largely right-wing/Republican viewpoints are presented in the article and cloaked to make them seem like the consensus view. They are not. In fact much of the theory presented in the article has been thrown it to doubt due to the fact that the dismantling of New Deal regulation promoted by the right-wing/Republican theorists cited is believed by many economists to the the primary cause of the 2008 Financial Crisis and resulting Great Recession. The article is terribly one-sided. Keynesian and Marxist viewpoints MUST be presented for it to be balanced. Presenting only the right-wing view constitutes deception. As of now this article is at best a work of right-wing revisionist history - at worst Orwellian propaganda. "He who controls the past controls the future." [1] ByronHudson (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-21T05:15:00.000Z","author":"ByronHudson","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ByronHudson-2012-06-21T05:15:00.000Z-Bias_in_this_article_is_extremely_destructive_right_now","replies":[]}}-->
This article can't seem to decide whether the New Deal helped or hurt southern sharecroppers and tenant farmers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephemerama (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-09-05T15:20:00.000Z","author":"Ephemerama","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ephemerama-2008-09-05T15:20:00.000Z-Contradictions_on_sharecroppers","replies":[]}}-->
It did both. It stalled eventual mechanization, but unintentionally accelerated the death of the labor system by drastically cutting production. 35.10.45.21 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Yaron Harnell__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-07T20:08:00.000Z","author":"35.10.45.21","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-35.10.45.21-2008-10-07T20:08:00.000Z-Contradictions_on_sharecroppers","replies":["c-24.21.105.223-2008-11-20T06:50:00.000Z-35.10.45.21-2008-10-07T20:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
Some recent scholarship, such as Keith Volanto's book "Texas, Cotton and the New Deal," have actually argued that the New Deal actually accelerated mechanization, because land owners used subsidies to buy tractors (instead of pay sharecroppers and tenant farmers) and then no longer the extra labor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.183 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-17T21:08:00.000Z","author":"129.133.127.183","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-129.133.127.183-2009-01-17T21:08:00.000Z-Contradictions_on_sharecroppers","replies":[]}}-->
It generally depended on what subregion of the South you are talking about. Where the terrain was conducive and it was generally cost-efficient, then yes, the AAA tended to lead to increased mechanization. Not in other areas where tractors and other equipment were less efficient. Either way, the AAA tended to be very bad for croppers and tenants simply because less land in production due to gov't payments for retraction of land = less need for agricultural laborers. Thus, it was not just mechanization that was driving croppers and tenants from the land, but the domestic allotment policy itself--which was mdesigned by non-southern farming men who did not see that their plans would be beneficial to landowners such as in the North and Midwest but quite harmful to non-tenured farmers in the South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.26.64 (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-17T23:35:00.000Z","author":"76.197.26.64","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-76.197.26.64-2009-08-17T23:35:00.000Z-Contradictions_on_sharecroppers","replies":[]}}-->
The New Deal reflected many of the popular viewpoints of socialist groups in the 1930s. Socialist groups had heavy ties to the labor unions in the U.S, and these groups were strengthened greatly by the NIRA which was formed by the New Deal. The New Deal also enforced an Eight Hour Workday (check the article). This was a popular idea in the labor movement, as well as with Socialists in America. Overall, the New Deal appears to have given Socialists much of what they demanded in the United States. Litanss (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-15T19:31:00.000Z","author":"Litanss","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Litanss-2008-04-15T19:31:00.000Z-Socialist\/Communist_Edit","replies":["c-76.106.145.195-2008-05-27T01:52:00.000Z-Litanss-2008-04-15T19:31:00.000Z"]}}-->
Paragraph 5 of "Origins" has been amended; among other weaknesses, it referred to the Socialist Party as a "liberal group," which is obviously silly. It also described the SP has having been "excluded" from participation in New Deal policymaking, when in fact it was the SP which had no interest in participating; this is getting off-topic, however, and so rather than a lengthy discussion of a party even then long in decline, this has been amended to the less controversial "not included." Arc boutant (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Arc_boutant__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-27T19:24:00.000Z","author":"Arc boutant","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Arc_boutant-2009-01-27T19:24:00.000Z-Socialist\/Communist_Edit","replies":["c-147.9.177.84-2009-02-26T04:07:00.000Z-Arc_boutant-2009-01-27T19:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
There are several assertive statements in this article that are debated topics! To improve the quality of this article, these assertions should be modified so to not violate conflicting viewpoints of others... Please point out any examples of such within this section. Litanss (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-15T19:31:00.000Z","author":"Litanss","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Litanss-2008-04-15T19:31:00.000Z-Neutrality_-_Article_should_be_less_ASSERTIVE","replies":[]}}--> Although the New Deal greatly improved the economy, it did not end the Great Depression. The coming of the Second World War ended the depression by creating demand for more products. - Many would disagree that WW2 directly caused the end of the depression; this is asserted strongly here. The most important program of 1935, and perhaps the New Deal as a whole, was the Social Security Act - The importance of the Social Security program is subjective - there are so many other programs being introduced at this time, so many would argue others are more important. Thus, it did not transform American capitalism in any genuinely radical way. -This is controversial; many would argue New Deal caused dramatic changes in the United States. The Wagner Act is one example, as U.S. business has been effected greatly by the strengthening of labor unions. Virtually all historians believe that the New Deal helped resolve the Great Depression - This is asserting the beliefs of a certain group (historians in general), and should be modified for quality's sake Litanss (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-15T20:00:00.000Z","author":"Litanss","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Litanss-2008-04-15T20:00:00.000Z-Neutrality_-_Article_should_be_less_ASSERTIVE","replies":["c-24.21.105.223-2008-11-20T07:06:00.000Z-Litanss-2008-04-15T20:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
This is an unbelievably biased article about the New Deal. By what fair academic standard could we justify applying an epithet ("Broker State") that is by no means a mainstream description, throughout the article? This article reflects the opinions of libertarian and so-called "Free Market" thinkers, not the mainstream accepted understanding.Ramsincanon (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-02-26T21:47:00.000Z","author":"Ramsincanon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ramsincanon-2008-02-26T21:47:00.000Z-Entirely_bias_\"interpretation\"_of_the_New_Deal,_as_opposed_to_straight_history.","replies":["c-193.130.82.253-2008-03-03T07:22:00.000Z-Ramsincanon-2008-02-26T21:47:00.000Z"]}}-->
I cannot see what you are talking about...141.155.26.144 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-14T20:37:00.000Z","author":"141.155.26.144","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-141.155.26.144-2008-04-14T20:37:00.000Z-Entirely_bias_\"interpretation\"_of_the_New_Deal,_as_opposed_to_straight_history.","replies":[]}}-->
I would like to see a citation for the assertion that there is debate about whether the New Deal made the depression worse. That strikes me as partisan revisionism.
forgive my complete lack of wikipedia technical skills... this article reads like an opinion paper a high-schooler would have written. encyclopedias should present facts, not opinions of conclusions, regardless of whether or not they are "mainstream" opinions . example: "In high school we were taught that Roosevelt came in as this great savior, put in "THE NEW DEAL" and America fought its way out of the morass." i am no expert but this is not the kind of writing i expect to see in an encyclopedia. i came across this page looking for facts, not opinions. i can't judge the validity of this article because i don't know the facts (hence my attempt research them) and it may be a great article but it should not be on wikipedia. at the very least this article needs a "disputed neutrality" header. - james jones, 06 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.43.8 (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-07-06T22:34:00.000Z","author":"71.36.43.8","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-71.36.43.8-2008-07-06T22:34:00.000Z-Entirely_bias_\"interpretation\"_of_the_New_Deal,_as_opposed_to_straight_history.","replies":["c-Rjensen-2008-10-29T18:10:00.000Z-71.36.43.8-2008-07-06T22:34:00.000Z"]}}-->
A new template has been created to help organise all of the various articles relating to the New Deal. Please come and help improve/expand if you can. Thanks. LordHarris 11:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-03-23T11:45:00.000Z","author":"LordHarris","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LordHarris-2008-03-23T11:45:00.000Z-Template:New_Deal","replies":["c-Penubag-2008-03-24T03:42:00.000Z-LordHarris-2008-03-23T11:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
The two graphs in this article are currently misleading. They purport to show a trend, but their origins are not at 0, which sensationalizes / exaggerates the trends being shown. Tempshill (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-12T19:46:00.000Z","author":"Tempshill","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tempshill-2008-06-12T19:46:00.000Z-Misleading_graphs","replies":["c-Rjensen-2008-06-13T04:50:00.000Z-Tempshill-2008-06-12T19:46:00.000Z","c-Kevin_Murray-2008-06-13T14:46:00.000Z-Tempshill-2008-06-12T19:46:00.000Z","c-76.103.128.198-2008-06-24T04:08:00.000Z-Tempshill-2008-06-12T19:46:00.000Z"]}}-->
I suspected that there was significant plagerism at this article evidenced by the tone and lack of context between some sections. In trying to find notability for the term "Broker state" sufficient to support major section on the topic, I ran across: [[1]] where the entire section was plagerized to our article. This is bad form and lazy. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-06-13T20:32:00.000Z","author":"Kevin Murray","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kevin_Murray-2008-06-13T20:32:00.000Z-Plagerism","replies":[]}}-->
Almost as lazy as misspelling plagiarism.
Does anyone know when "New Deal" went out of use/fashion? Was the term still in active use towards the end of WWII? DEddy (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-11-09T15:26:00.000Z","author":"DEddy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DEddy-2008-11-09T15:26:00.000Z-When_\"New_Deal\"_term_goes_out_of_fashion?","replies":["c-Rjensen-2008-11-09T17:29:00.000Z-DEddy-2008-11-09T15:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
I forgot his name but he and his work should be mentioned here.PonileExpress (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-23T20:15:00.000Z","author":"PonileExpress","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-PonileExpress-2008-12-23T20:15:00.000Z-The_Reporter_who_won_a_Pulitzer_Prize_for_his_reporting_on_corruption_in_the_New","replies":["c-Nonamer98-2009-04-15T03:56:00.000Z-PonileExpress-2008-12-23T20:15:00.000Z"]}}-->
"There is a broad consensus among historians that the New Deal policies aided in this recovery; in a recent survey, 95% of historians supported this idea, while 73% of economists agreed."
[2].
I deleted this line, because it wasn't supported by the reference. The only statistic close to the claim is from this question:
A P D 39. Taken as a whole, government policies of
E 27 22 51 the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen H 6 21 74 the Great Depression. Pr 97/95
? 89/87 - percent of economists replying, followed by the percent of historians replying
Only 51% of economists disagree (who answered), and only 74% of historians (who answered) in this survey disagree. There's no support for the above claim.
This is a direct quote from the survey: "Based on the survey, I concluded that the profession has not reached a consensus about the causes of the Great Depression, nor about the impact of the New Deal on economic growth."
This survey is also nearly 15 years old, and doesn't account for new research. It is also a survey of only teachers, and thus was a questionable sample to begin with. If this is going to be used at all it should say that according to this survey only 27% of historians agree or partially agree that the New Deal prolonged the depression, and only 49% of economists agree or partially agree that the New Deal prolonged the depression. Of course, then it would have to admit that this survey is nearly 15 years old, was only a survey of teachers, and that the person conducting the survey concluded there was no consensus about the impact of the New Deal on economic growth.
i wonder that.--Ilovesabbath (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-31T06:48:00.000Z","author":"Ilovesabbath","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ilovesabbath-2008-12-31T06:48:00.000Z-is_\"Puerto_Rico\"_right_during_\"The_First_Hundred_Days\"_section?","replies":[]}}-->
Looking from the statistics is enough to know.
WWII brought us out of the depression.
If there were a switch to make the economy go then every president would push it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-01-19T09:24:00.000Z","author":"Ericg33","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ericg33-2009-01-19T09:24:00.000Z-The_New_Deal_did_NOT_WORK","replies":["c-ShedPlant-2009-03-25T19:52:00.000Z-Ericg33-2009-01-19T09:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
This article states in a couple of places that abolishing the Gold Standard was part of the New Deal. At some point the USA re-adopted it, because it was last abolished by Richard Nixon. This ought to be mentioned in the section on New Deal Programs, that the Gold Standard was re-adopted (I would guess in the 1950's, after the Roosevelt/Truman administrations ended) and then removed again in 1970 or 1971.
Actually, the gold standard was re-adopted one year later, in 1934. The main purpose was because other nations insisted that we keep the gold standard. At least, thats what The American Pageant says. Nonamer98 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-15T03:49:00.000Z","author":"Nonamer98","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nonamer98-2009-04-15T03:49:00.000Z-Gold_Standard","replies":[]}}-->
This is very surprising. This needs to be removed. I'd do it myself, but there's a risk of an edit war! "However, no economist has written a full-scale Keynesian analysis of the depression, so it is difficult to evaluate how that model would work." Keynes's own book is surely such an analysis? (I still haven't got around to reading my own copy of The General Theory)
Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 16:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-02-11T16:45:00.000Z","author":"Aaron McDaid","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aaron_McDaid-2009-02-11T16:45:00.000Z-\"However,_no_economist_has_written_a_full-scale_Keynesian_analysis_of_the_depres","replies":["c-Rjensen-2009-03-25T21:27:00.000Z-Aaron_McDaid-2009-02-11T16:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
I recently undid several destructive edits to this page. FDR does not, nor will ever (hopefully) stand for "Farting Deli Rooster". Joefridayquaker (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-17T22:53:00.000Z","author":"Joefridayquaker","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Joefridayquaker-2009-04-17T22:53:00.000Z-Farting_Deli_Rooster","replies":[]}}-->
I've found a pair of vandal edits that have been sitting here since April 4th, both were done by the user at 71.106.7.124. Both refer to someone named "Goepel" I'm removing them. I don't know how to do anything about vandals though, so if somebody'd like to warn them, that would be nice. Licensedlunacy (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-04-24T06:55:00.000Z","author":"Licensedlunacy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Licensedlunacy-2009-04-24T06:55:00.000Z-Goepel","replies":[]}}-->
1934-36 vs. 1935–1938, in the lead section. Also violates the whole "consistent style" thing, but yeah. Can we get some confirmation as to which is the real time period? --64.5.15.136 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-05-10T20:40:00.000Z","author":"64.5.15.136","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-64.5.15.136-2009-05-10T20:40:00.000Z-Contradicting_Second_New_Deal_periods","replies":[]}}-->
Just saw the statement 'as Zelizer (2000) proves' under Fiscal conservatism. Probably just a simple lexographical mistake but no historian can ever 'prove' anything. Something more like 'Zelizer argued' or something. Thoughts? Odin (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-05-18T19:38:00.000Z","author":"Odin 13","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Odin_13-2009-05-18T19:38:00.000Z-Fiscal_conservatism_-_Zelizer_proves?","replies":[],"displayName":"Odin"}}-->
There's a section that discusses a considerable amount of criticism towards the New Deal, yet there's no section here showing the other view point. Why is this? Neverfades (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-14T23:32:00.000Z","author":"Neverfades","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Neverfades-2009-06-14T23:32:00.000Z-Why_no_section_dedicated_to_praise??","replies":[]}}-->
They killed kennedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.160.2 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-07-09T19:12:00.000Z","author":"66.19.160.2","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-66.19.160.2-2009-07-09T19:12:00.000Z-The_stuff_they_dont_want_us_to_know","replies":[]}}-->
In the "World comparisons" section, under Germany, why is there no mention of the Treaty of Versailles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.53 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-11-16T16:05:00.000Z","author":"69.171.161.53","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-69.171.161.53-2009-11-16T16:05:00.000Z-The_stuff_they_dont_want_us_to_know","replies":[]}}-->
Someone please put the type of federalism the New Deal created into the article.Deedeek (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-22T13:18:00.000Z","author":"Deedeek","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Deedeek-2009-08-22T13:18:00.000Z-Federalism?","replies":[]}}-->
Looks like this article has been punched around a few times lately. The entire section "Farm and rural programs" is gone. Might be other still-unrecovered material too. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-11-23T23:44:00.000Z","author":"Cramyourspam","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cramyourspam-2009-11-23T23:44:00.000Z-Still_much_content_missing_from_before_attack\/s","replies":["c-Cramyourspam-2009-11-25T05:56:00.000Z-Cramyourspam-2009-11-23T23:44:00.000Z"]}}-->
From this section:
"UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian are among those who believe the New Deal caused the Depression to persist longer than it would otherwise have, concluding in a study that the "New Deal labor and industrial policies did not lift the economy out of the Depression as President Roosevelt and his economic planners had hoped," but that the "New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression." They claim that the New Deal "cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery." They say that the "abandonment of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s."[62] Cole and Ohanian claimed that FDR's policies prolonged the Depression by 7 years.[63] However, Cole and Ohanian's argument relies on hypotheticals, including an unprecedented growth rate necessary to end the Depression by 1936.[64][65]"
I can't help but notice that the beginning of the paragraph (citing Cole and Ohanian's argument) cites the UCLA press and then an academic paper directly, whereas the end of the paragraph (citing the disagreement with Cole and Ohanian) cites an opinion paper with a rather open and blatant political bias.
What are Paul Rosenberg's qualifications? Is he an economist? Or is he a journalist? As an economist-in-training myself, I can tell you his argument doesn't hold a lot of water(in fact, it basically boils down to his personal credulity, which is inherently subjective and not a very good rebuttal to Cole and Ohanian's work). Should we really be citing such blatantly partisan articles simply to try to pursue this Golden Mean fallacy in 'presenting both sides of the argument'. Sometimes one side really does have all the cards, although that doesn't necessarily mean they're right or that their argument is the 'truth'.
If we want a balanced presentation of the debate, perhaps we ought to stick to citing actual academic research instead of the ravings of politicized madmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.233.22 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-12-28T17:59:00.000Z","author":"71.162.233.22","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-71.162.233.22-2009-12-28T17:59:00.000Z-Should_we_really_be_playing_these_political_games?","replies":[]}}-->
AMEN. This article has been sabotaged by a right-wing web activist! ByronHudson (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-21T06:52:00.000Z","author":"ByronHudson","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ByronHudson-2012-06-21T06:52:00.000Z-Should_we_really_be_playing_these_political_games?","replies":[]}}-->
The section in this article on the notion of the "Green New Deal" is inappropriate and biased. It should not even be included in this article on FDR. For instance, this statement:
"This in turn creates more sustainable urban environments, lowers carbon emissions and stimulates the economy amongst much else."
This statement is not true according to the fundamentals of economics and it does not include any citations. In fact, this section includes no citations whatsoever and only seems to serve a leftist, progressive agenda which is at the forefront of controversy today. I don't think it is the function of Wikipedia and/or this article on FDR to promote such agendas particularly with no factual support. I think to editorialize the legacy of FDR's policies in an encyclopedia article is just the kind of indoctrination our young people are suffering from currently.
If, however, a proper history of economics and government were to be the basis for such analysis then it might be appropriate. Although, with that as a basis these kinds of conclusions this section states would not be made. I hope that WP recognizes the danger in the existence of this section and removes it, especially in light of current events in which rhetoric like this is tossed around as fact.
I actually went back and reread the section and decided to delete it. It will not be missed and is irrelevant to the history of FDR's presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bberchin (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-02-05T16:20:00.000Z","author":"Bberchin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bberchin-2010-02-05T16:20:00.000Z-Green_New_Deal??","replies":[]}}-->
It would be interesting to see government spending year-by-year in this period compared to GDP, unemployment, etc. It would also be interesting to know what percent of GDP was government spending vs. private. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-19T19:28:00.000Z","author":"Beland","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Beland-2010-03-19T19:28:00.000Z-Government_spending_stats_needed","replies":[]}}-->
(11th section) I saw that the National Housing Act of 1934, which created the Federal Housing Administration, was missing. Someone should probably add that. --03:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.35.153 (talk) Changed the language slightly to conform with the neutral language of an encyclopedia.Rbird (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-08-05T04:55:00.000Z","author":"Rbird","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rbird-2011-08-05T04:55:00.000Z-List_of_New_Deal_Programs","replies":[]}}-->
The whole reference to the supposed survey should be removed or reworded. Based on the wording of the questions and the fact it was anonymous. Who verified it? There were no checks and the survey taker could have had his own agenda. For example, why was there no option to answer "Disagree, with provisos"? How many in the "Agree, with provisos" would have answered in the previous category if it were a choice, and how many thought that it didn't go far enough? It's impossible to answer. Also, the link for the source is dead.
Another problem, the first source cites that Keynesian economics became the "dominant view in the economics profession for at least the next forty years", but "an increasing number of economists" have doubts. How much is an increasing number when dealing with a "dominant view"? It's a small number, as common sense dictates. The section needs to be cleaned up, or removed. DD2K (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-03T20:54:00.000Z","author":"DD2K","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DD2K-2010-04-03T20:54:00.000Z-1995_\"survey\"","replies":["c-Rjensen-2010-04-03T22:10:00.000Z-DD2K-2010-04-03T20:54:00.000Z"]}}-->
Note it can't be reported that a "minority" of economists think the New Deal prolonged the depression, because the figure is 49% compared to 51%. That's within the margin of error if it's going to be extrapolated. Signospano (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-04-04T02:04:00.000Z","author":"Signospano","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Signospano-2010-04-04T02:04:00.000Z-1995_\"survey\"","replies":["c-Signospano-2010-04-04T02:09:00.000Z-Signospano-2010-04-04T02:04:00.000Z"]}}-->
The country went from a budget surplus in 1930 to a 4 billion dollar deficit in 1936. That may not be much by today's standards and it may have been useful or necessary, but high deficits were very much a topic of concern among Roosevelt's opponents.
If you want to correct the impression that Roosevelt didn't care about deficits or fiscal conservatism, fine, but your article tends to give the equally erroneous impression that FDR was more fiscally conservative (in the context of his own time) than he actually was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.104 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-20T19:43:00.000Z","author":"74.10.198.104","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-74.10.198.104-2010-05-20T19:43:00.000Z-Fiscal_Conservatism","replies":["c-Rjensen-2011-04-01T01:16:00.000Z-74.10.198.104-2010-05-20T19:43:00.000Z"]}}-->
I hear, from the underground, that FDR was in on a massive conspiracy, dating back all the way to Thomas_Jefferson being given the great seal of the United States by an unknown cloaked man one stormy night as he and his compatriots were trying to design the very seal, and perhaps even before to some sort of Masonic conspiracy stretching out through the ages. The evidence of this, so I hear, is that FDR interpreted the motto on the reverse of the great seal (Novus ordo seclorum) as "the new deal for the ages", thus giving rise to his "New Deal". Now, I love a good conspiracy as much as the next, but I was wondering if anyone else had heard of this conspiracy that transcends the ages? I'm being serious.
CybergothiChé (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-10T17:25:00.000Z","author":"Cybergothiche","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cybergothiche-2010-07-10T17:25:00.000Z-Novus_ordo_seclorum","replies":[],"displayName":"CybergothiCh\u00e9"}}-->
CybergothiChé (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-07-10T17:27:00.000Z","author":"Cybergothiche","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cybergothiche-2010-07-10T17:27:00.000Z-Novus_ordo_seclorum","replies":[],"displayName":"CybergothiCh\u00e9"}}-->
Where does this article discuss how the New Deal was received internationally, by foreign statesmen contemporary with Roosevelt, and how the New Deal influenced the politics and policies of non-American places and people? It isn't clear to me, based on a cursory reading of the article, where the New Deal's influence on world history outside of the United States is addressed. Where would be the best place to include information on the New Deal's international influence?Ferox Seneca (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2011-05-07T04:17:00.000Z","author":"Ferox Seneca","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ferox_Seneca-2011-05-07T04:17:00.000Z-International_interpretations_and_reactions","replies":[]}}-->
Depression Graph.svg is based on per capita income. It reflects the different levels of productivity. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-04-15T19:57:00.000Z","author":"Pass3456","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pass3456-2012-04-15T19:57:00.000Z-World_comparisons","replies":[]}}-->
The labor movement had crusaded to realize its most elusive goal: to organize the millions of workers in the mass-production sectors. The task was especially difficult since mass-prduction did not require skilled workers. Therfore workers could be easily replaced.[3] Many companies reacted by suppressing unions, firing unionized employees and breaking strikes by force. The comflicts often escalated in (often mutual) violence which ended up with people injured and even killed.[4] For example on July 5, 1934, a strike in San Francisco grew violent when a convoy of strikebreakers tried to pass a picket line. Police intervened with nightsticks, teargas and revolvers, in the end two strikers lay dead from gunfire. The hatred culminated in a general strike followed by more than 130,000 workers that turned San Francisco in a virtual ghost town for four days.[5] The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, finally guaranteed workers the rights to collective bargaining through unions of their own choice. The Act also established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to facilitate wage agreements and to suppress the repeated labor disturbances. The Wagner Act totally did not compel employers to reach agreement with their employees. But it opened possibilities for American labor.[6] The result was a tremendous growth of membership in the labor unions, especially in the mass-production sector[7], composing the American Federation of Labor. Labor thus became a major component of the New Deal political coalition.
I think that is a pretty fair summary of Freedom From Fear pages 289 - 291. The struggle to organize the workers in the mass-production sectors as the main source for conflict can also be referred with (Colin Gordon, New Deals: Business, Labor, and Politics in America, 1920-1935, Cambridge University Press, 1. Auflage 1994, ISBN 978-0521457552, p. 225). --Pass3456 (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-05-27T08:45:00.000Z","author":"Pass3456","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pass3456-2012-05-27T08:45:00.000Z-Labor_relations","replies":["c-Rjensen-2012-05-27T09:16:00.000Z-Pass3456-2012-05-27T08:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, finally guaranteed workers the rights to collective bargaining through unions of their own choice. The Act also established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to facilitate wage agreements and to suppress the repeated labor disturbances. The Wagner Act totally did not compel employers to reach agreement with their employees. But it opened possibilities for American labor.[1] The result was a tremendous growth of membership in the labor unions, especially in the mass-production sector[2], composing the American Federation of Labor. Labor thus became a major component of the New Deal political coalition.
Details should not be explained in this article since there is Causes of the Great Depression. As an overview contemporary austrian economics and the evolving modern consensus should be enough.--Pass3456 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-17T18:42:00.000Z","author":"Pass3456","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pass3456-2012-06-17T18:42:00.000Z-Origins_of_the_Great_Depression","replies":[]}}-->
Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research is important here. Example: food proces were in decline long before 1929. The peak would have been about 1922. Conclusions should be made by historians. Our task is to present published conclusions (which are relevant for the article). --Pass3456 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-18T19:11:00.000Z","author":"Pass3456","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pass3456-2012-06-18T19:11:00.000Z-AAA","replies":[]}}-->
Hayek and Republican officials get all of the air time.
Not heard from are the Keynesians: [1] Never mind the actual left (Marxist theorists). [2] This article is biased in the most insidious, Orwellian sense. It paints a picture with almost wholly right-wing theories while pretending to be neutral.
If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, it must not allow the opponents of a policy to paint a skewed picture of it. This article has been allowed to become a propagandistic smear-piece. ByronHudson (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-21T05:02:00.000Z","author":"ByronHudson","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ByronHudson-2012-06-21T05:02:00.000Z-Insidious_bias_throughout,_but_especially_in_'#_1.3.1_Origins_of_the_Great_Depre","replies":[]}}-->
UPDATE: I edited the section. Can you believe the guy didn't mention the Keynesians ONCE. He presented the Libertarians as the mainstream view, and the Monetarists as the dissenting view. Of course he didn't call them 'Libertarian' or 'Monetarist'.
His reference links were full of far-right political garbage. Literally all of it.
This article is such a mess! I don't have time to attack the whole thing! Is there anybody out there who has the time and lack of bias to do the subject justice?
I was surprised to find this article in such a state as well. Keynesian economics is largely credited for how things turned out in Scandinavia after the war. I wasn't even aware that there was such a strong interest in re-analyzing the New Deal in the US. From a European standpoint much of this article currently reads as an attempt to build an attack on the consensus. 84.208.181.207 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-02-27T19:19:00.000Z","author":"84.208.181.207","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-84.208.181.207-2013-02-27T19:19:00.000Z-Insidious_bias_throughout,_but_especially_in_'#_1.3.1_Origins_of_the_Great_Depre","replies":[]}}-->
To whomever locked the article and stopped the onslaught of disinformation: thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.102.136 (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-05-15T23:36:00.000Z","author":"76.169.102.136","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-76.169.102.136-2013-05-15T23:36:00.000Z-Insidious_bias_throughout,_but_especially_in_'#_1.3.1_Origins_of_the_Great_Depre","replies":[]}}-->
{{cite book}}
|author=
ÉĻÁŃÓŔ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.216.152.186 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-31T04:06:00.000Z","author":"67.216.152.186","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-67.216.152.186-2013-01-31T04:06:00.000Z-elanor_roosevelt","replies":[]}}-->
I don't have the experience or time to report this, but there may be a problem. It looks like close paraphrasing where some sentences are too similar.
Kiran Klaus Patel's book has the following sentence on page 5:
"After 1945, few observers continued to see these similarities ..." …
This article says:
After 1945 only few observers continued to see similarities.
The same page from Patel's book says:
"The most important cause behind these similarities was the growth of state interventionism since both societies, in the face of a catastrophic situation, no longer counted on the power of the market to heal itself."
The most important cause was the growth of state interventionism since in the face of the catastrophic economic situation both societies no longer counted on the power of the market to heal itself.
I think that there should be quotation marks since most of the words are Patel's. It's possible I made a typo or two when typing from Patel's book. I know it is difficult to paraphrase. If this is a false alarm, I apologize. If not, can someone fix this. Thanks. LesLein (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-03-15T01:55:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-03-15T01:55:00.000Z-HELP_NEEDED_--_Potential_copyright_or_plagiarism_problem","replies":[]}}-->
i'm enquiring about a mistake you've made on the new deal wikipedia page. it says "Rural America was a high priority for Roosevelt and his energetic Secretary of Agriculture, Henry C. Wallace." henry c wallace was henry a wallaces father, and was not in office at the time of roosevelt. rather it was henry a wallace. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.67.99 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-05-12T00:23:00.000Z","author":"82.39.67.99","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-82.39.67.99-2013-05-12T00:23:00.000Z-new_deal_henry_c_wallace\/henry_a_wallace","replies":["c-Fat&Happy-2013-05-12T00:51:00.000Z-82.39.67.99-2013-05-12T00:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Can we agree not to stuff this paragraph with quotes from the 1930s. I think that the Hoover and Roosevelt quotes serve to highlight the debate but that should be enough. I can´t help thinking that the tendency to quote old stuff is to suggest conclusions that don´t match with the conclusions of contemporary historians. --Pass3456 (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-02T12:06:00.000Z","author":"Pass3456","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pass3456-2013-01-02T12:06:00.000Z-Charges_of_fascism","replies":["c-Rjensen-2013-01-02T12:14:00.000Z-Pass3456-2013-01-02T12:06:00.000Z"]}}-->
The Wikipedia policy on primary sources is as follows: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."
In order to satisfy myself on the accuracy of a quotation from Harold Ickes' published diary, I obtained a used copy this week. In an entry for October 5, 1933, Ickes talked to Roosevelt privately. He paraphrases Roosevelt as follows: "He said 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." That is the full context on the subject for that day. Adding this quote is consistent with Wikipedia policy. It is very relevant.
The discussion on fascism remains flawed in that it says the charges of fascism were started by the New Deal's critics. Actually members of FDR's administration boasted of the New Deal's similarities with fascism. Hugh Johnson said that Mussolini was a "shining name" during his farewell address. The NRA's internal studies spoke favorably of Italian fascism. Rexford Tugwell praised Italian fascism. FDR expressed interest in implementing the economic policies of "that admirable Italian gentleman." During the first New Deal both its supporters and critics noted its similarity to Italin-style fascist corporatism. See the article by James Q. Whitman in the Autumn 1991 issue of The American Journal of Comparative Law. The title is "Of Corporatism, Fascism, and the First New Deal." It is available at JSTOR.
Whitman explains why the subject is confusing. After Italy invaded Ethiopiam the Roosevelt administration stopped talking about similarties with Italian fascism. Historians ignored the subject for a generation. It was revised by Garraty and other prominent historians. According to Whitman, interest revived because of New Left interest in "Corporate Liberalism." By the late 1980s it was "almost routine" for histories of the New Deal to list similarities with fascism.
Finally, New Deal supporters say its origins were in the War Industries Board (604). Page 604 of Garraty's textbook says that under Bernard Baruch the WIB "was given almost dictatorial power to allocate scarce materials,standardize production, fix prices, and coordinate American and Allied purchasing." "The antitrust laws were suspended and producers were encouraged, even compelled, to cooperate with one another. The New Freedom variety of laissez-faire had no place in a wartime economy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-04T03:16:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-01-04T03:16:00.000Z-Charges_of_fascism","replies":["c-Pass3456-2013-01-04T12:17:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-01-04T03:16:00.000Z"]}}-->
The section "Charges of Fascism" needs a lot of work. I will address the problems further when time permits. In the meantime, note that Amazon provides the capability to search the Payne book. (After a brief skim, it looks good.) According to the current Wiki article, Payne writes:
“Stanley Payne, a leading historian of fascism, explains that fascism had no influence in the United States. Even ‘the various populist, nativist, and rightist movements in the United States during the 1920s and 1930s fell distinctly short of fascism.’”
Here is what page 350 of Payne's book actually says:
"As in Latin America, the various populist, nativist, and rightist movements fell distinctly short of fascism.”
The current Wiki passage on Payne's findings mischaracterize his findings. On page 230 Payne writes:
“Mussolini looked to the American economy to provide the strength to overcome the depression in Europe, and within a matter of months he was sure that the New Deal was copying Fascist economic policies – just as Roosevelt’s critics in the United States alleged.” In other words, on this issue Payne agrees with Roosevelt's critics! LesLein (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-05T03:45:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-01-05T03:45:00.000Z-Charges_of_fascism","replies":["c-Rjensen-2013-01-05T04:20:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-01-05T03:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
Payne agrees with Roosevelt's critics that the New Deal copied Mussolini's fascism. That qualifies as a link. Mussolini only needed to read a newspaper to know what FDR was doing. Roosevelt said he planned to imitate "that admirable Italian gentleman."
"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources]." -- That's why I provide the Ickes quotes without any additional comment. The Garraty and Brinkley quotations qualify as secondary and tertiary sources.
"If you would check secondary sources you would find out that Harold Ickes and other members of FDR's administration 'never' charged the New Deal of being fascism." -- I didn't say otherwise. It would be ridiculous for Ickes to write a diary entry accusing himself of fascism.
"According to fascism-expert Stanley Payne fascism had no influence in the United States." What is the page number for this? On page 230 of his book Payne says that Mussolini "was sure that the New Deal was copying Fascist economic policies – just as Roosevelt’s critics in the United States alleged.”
"I think we can agree that relevance needs more than just a confimation of Godwin's law." Early in his first term Roosevelt said that was following some things that Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. That is more relevance than Godwin's law. The charges of fascism section was published here before I ever read it. Godwin's law refers to online discussions. The fascism issue started in the 1930s. Invoking Godwin's law is an anachronism.
"So please start with reliable, published secondary sources that say something of encyclopedic relevance about the New Deal. That is what Garraty and Whitman do. LesLein (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-05T20:09:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-01-05T20:09:00.000Z-Charges_of_fascism","replies":["c-Pass3456-2013-01-05T21:30:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-01-05T20:09:00.000Z","c-Pass3456-2013-01-06T15:35:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-01-05T20:09:00.000Z"]}}-->
On page 230 Payne mentions Mussolini and the New Deal. There is no reason to omit it since it deals directly with the issue. The quote from Harold Ickes was removed, even though it was from a secondary source. The material from Shlaes and Will indicates that the New Deal violated rights, contrary to Roosevelt's claims. In order to be neutral articles are supposed to be neutral. LesLein (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-06T19:46:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-01-06T19:46:00.000Z-Charges_of_fascism","replies":[]}}-->
At the end of the article is a list of primary sources. This includes works by FDR and Raymond Moley. If it is okay to cite them, why not Ickes? LesLein (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-06T20:48:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-01-06T20:48:00.000Z-Charges_of_fascism","replies":["c-Pass3456-2013-01-06T22:21:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-01-06T20:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
What's about this book? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-01-07T02:13:00.000Z","author":"Mr. Mustard","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mr._Mustard-2013-01-07T02:13:00.000Z-Charges_of_fascism","replies":["c-The_Devil's_Advocate-2013-01-07T22:38:00.000Z-Mr._Mustard-2013-01-07T02:13:00.000Z","c-Pass3456-2013-02-20T20:10:00.000Z-Mr._Mustard-2013-01-07T02:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
I haven´t undone everything but that does not mean that the additions are accepted. I await your statement and then we can take it to Third opinion. Problems are:
Harry Dexter White did pass materials along to the USSR, but he acted out of idealism not as a member of the Communist Party, says "Red White" By: Benn Steil, Foreign Affairs, (Mar/Apr 2013) Vol. 92, Issue 2. Steil says White, "believed that the Soviet Union was a vital U.S. ally but because he also believed passionately in the success of the bold Soviet experiment with socialism." Steil says, "White would not take orders from Moscow. He worked on his own terms. He joined no underground movements." Rjensen (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-05-19T19:56:00.000Z","author":"Rjensen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rjensen-2013-05-19T19:56:00.000Z-Harry_Dexter_White","replies":["c-LesLein-2013-07-14T21:18:00.000Z-Rjensen-2013-05-19T19:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
I made some edits in the past week. I think they address all of the earlier complaints as I explain here. In other cases, the complaints were rejected by the Wiki Admin Noticeboard. I think the real problem is information suppression.
Last January Pass3456 first reverted my edit because it used original research. That was the first time I heard of the rule, being relatively new here. Rjensen restored the material that was well sourced. Pass3456 then revoked it because the ratio of quotes to non-quotes was too high. There are no such rules. Pass3456 had no objection to the block quotes from Hoover and FDR that were based on original research.
Pass3456 agreed that some of my sources were good. When I put their information back in the article, Pass3456 redacted them to the point where they were almost meaningless. Wiki calls this “Not allowing one view to ‘speak for itself.’”
My critics cited Stanley Payne as a definitive. When I accurately cited Payne note that the New Deal and Germany had similar labor policies, Pass3456 said that this was a “fringe theory.”
Even though the FDR block quote reflects obvious bias and is original research, no one objects to it. When I added other relevant quotes from FDR, it is reverted. Wiki refers to this as “Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.” It also constitutes what Wiki calls “Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).” An example of a straw man tactic was using the Hoover block quote as a foil.
Rjensen objected to an FDR quote because it will mislead high school kids into thinking that it links FDR’s and Hitler’s atrocities. To avoid any confusion I now quote a book by Tim McNeese on the Great Depression, which is marketed to those 10 and over. McNeese’s editor was Rjensen. This book says that the NRA was “almost dictatorial” in its regulation of business, a claim I never made. This should prevent any further confusion.
The final complaint was that I was pushing a “fringe theory.” The only person supporting Pass3456 was Dave Dial, who only dropped in for a personal attack.
No one has provided any evidence that my recent edits are irrelevant, poorly sourced, or inaccurate. My critics should either be specific or let my edits stand. LesLein (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-07-14T21:39:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-07-14T21:39:00.000Z-More_on_fascism","replies":["c-Pass3456-2013-07-14T22:10:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-07-14T21:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
There is no citation for the sentence saying that communists charged the New Deal with being fascist. I don't think American communists are a credible source anyway.
I marked the von Mises sentence "failed verification." The von Mises book does not define fascism as the article claims. It only mentions the New Deal once. It does not say the New Deal was fascist. It says the New Deal was a "replica" of Bismarcks sozialpolitik (social policy). Either a direct quote showing otherwise or a new reference is needed. LesLein (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-07T02:40:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-08-07T02:40:00.000Z-Problems_with_citations","replies":["c-Pass3456-2013-08-07T22:17:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-08-07T02:40:00.000Z","c-DD2K-2013-08-07T22:22:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-08-07T02:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
Was asked to provided a source . -- Moxy (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-12T20:40:00.000Z","author":"Moxy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Moxy-2013-08-12T20:40:00.000Z-Problems_with_citations","replies":["c-Rjensen-2013-08-13T05:31:00.000Z-Moxy-2013-08-12T20:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
The subsection on fascism states "After 1945 only few observers continued to see similarities." The source is Kiran Klaus Patel,
James Q. Whitman stated the opposite in an academic article. He wrote "By the late 1980s it became almost routine for New Deal historians to list resemblances between the New Deal and fascist governments." Whitman provides plenty of examples in the 1991 article; he also identifies prominent historians who felt otherwise. Since then plenty of other works have been published (Patel, Dan P. Waterman, Wolfgang Schivelbusch). According to Whitman the topic was somewhat taboo after 1935 and 1936 (not 1945) until 1973 articles by Garraty and Hawley.
I think Whitman is more credible here. Patel is naturally pushing his book and can't begin by saying that his topic has been covered before.
By the way, if you search the Whitman article for "admirable" you will see that I didn't create the notion that Roosevelt admired Mussolini. LesLein (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-15T01:09:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-08-15T01:09:00.000Z-Disputed","replies":["c-The_Four_Deuces-2013-08-15T04:19:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-08-15T01:09:00.000Z"]}}-->
I was accused of smearing FDR by saying that he expressed admiration of Mussolini. Indeed, Mussolini had a popular following in the U.S. Roosevelt also studied some of Italy's programs for implemention in the New Deal. It is too bad the article can't mention this. BTW, the example Whitman provided and I mentioned before was deurbanization, which is probably innocuous.
Historical revisionism can often become the predominant view. The Wiki article on the subject provides plenty of examples. It quotes James McPherson saying that "revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship."
There is quite a contradiction between "some comparisons" (Pass3456) or "few observers" (article) and "almost routine" (Whitman). The dispute still exists.
The main contradiction is between the article's presentation of Patel's views and the reality of Patel's book. The article states that according to Patel "the crises led to a limited degree of convergence" on the level of economic and social policy. On the page in question Patel wrote "both nations subsequently employed what were often strikingly similar instruments of economic and social policy; on this level, the crisis led to a limited degree of convergence." Earlier in the paragraph Patel wrote that the political responses were very different. It was the political differences that caused an overall lack of convergence; Patel thought the German and New Deal social and economic programs were very similar.
On the previous page Patel wrote that while having differences, the German Labor Service and CCC had a "special closeness." He writes that the similarities provide the "larger background" to his book. None of this comes through in the article. It always seemed mystifying that Patel would write a lenghty book about programs that had little in common.
The article misrepresents John Garraty's comparisons as well. The Wiki article links to his article at JSTOR. Garraty says that the New Deals and National Socialism were very different "in totality." He states that politically they couldn't be more different. So far, so good. But Garraty says that their anti-depression programs "displayed striking similarities." That is the exact opposite of the article's summary of his views. Patel's and Garraty's summary of economic programs are strikingly similar. This is highly relevant since the New Deal article's first sentence says "This article is about the economic program."
The paragraph ending with the quote from Isaiah Berlin does not represent of Patel's findings. This paragraph is intended as a summary of the New Deal's defenders on this topic. The next paragraph summarizes the views of critics who perceived a convergence. To include only one paragraph violates NPOV.
Isaiah Berlin was a famous scholar, but his article providing the quotation was an opinion piece. The statement that America was the "only light in the darkness" is false. The U.S. was not the only democracy that resisted fascism; off hand I can think of at least half a dozen others. The guidance on quotations says "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false." The quotation needs to be removed.
The problem can't be resolved by simply removing Patel's material. If Patel's statements on differences are relevant, then so are the similarities that he used for his book's background.
Finally, I don't see why it is harmful to point out that the New Deal drew on radical foreign governments for some economic policies. It doesn't bother me that the article on the Interstate Highway System makes it plain that Eisenhower was influenced by the German autobahns. Even the worst governments can generate a good idea; it is not unreasonable to point out the striking economic similarities. LesLein (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-09-01T00:34:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-09-01T00:34:00.000Z-Disputed","replies":[]}}-->
"In an attempt to achieve that goal (overcoming mass unemployment and the global Depression), both nations subsequently employed what were often strikingly similar instruments of economic and social policy; on this level, the crisis led to a limited degree of convergence." So the quintessence is that "on this level (economic and social policy), the crisis led to a limited degree of convergence". It is not up to us to puzzle about whether Patel may have summarized his findings wrong.
Patel wrote that the Labor Service was not an invention of fascism. Bulgaria had it since 1920, Switzerland, Sweden and Great Britain in the early 1930s. It is a bit of an academic Nazi exploitation to compare New Deal and fascism. In fact neither fascism nor the New Deal developed new economic ideas, they both relied on existing ideas. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-09-01T20:30:00.000Z","author":"Pass3456","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pass3456-2013-09-01T20:30:00.000Z-the_crises_led_to_a_limited_degree_of_convergence","replies":[]}}-->
Even if nazis may have had sexual orgies - sexual orgies aren´t the essence of nazism.
Near the top of page 5 of Kiran Klaus Patel’s book, he starts a paragraph on the politics of the New Deal and National Socialism. He later writes “In an attempt to achieve that goal [reducing unemployment] both nations subsequently employed what were often strikingly similar instruments of economic and social policy; on this level, the crisis led to a limited degree of convergence.” The phrase on “strikingly similar” policies on economics was omitted in the article. Instead, it says that the limited degree of convergence applied to economics.
As the article states, the book says “After 1945, few observers continued to see these similarities …” But the next paragraph says that “Interest in comparative studies revived only with the growing realization that comparisons do not necessarily amount to an apology …” The word "revived" is omitted in the article. It goes on to say that articles in the early 1970s addressed the issue.
On page five Patel summarizes the views of Roosevelt’s defenders and detractors. The article only includes the defender’s views. The critics are completely omitted. The defender’s views are presented as Patel’s. Actually, the similarities are the background for Patel's book.
There is no place in Patel’s book where he says that John Garraty found “a limited degree of convergence in economic policy” as the article claims. On page 908 of Garraty’s article, he writes that the New Deal and National Socialism couldn’t have been “more antithetical” politically. "In totality" they "were fundamentally different." On economics though, they “displayed striking similarities.”
In its current state the article gets all of this wrong. LesLein (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-03T03:47:00.000Z","author":"LesLein","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-LesLein-2013-10-03T03:47:00.000Z-the_crises_led_to_a_limited_degree_of_convergence","replies":["c-Pass3456-2013-10-03T14:08:00.000Z-LesLein-2013-10-03T03:47:00.000Z"]}}-->
Historians such as Hawley have examined the origins of the NRA in detail, showing the main inspiration came from Senators Hugo Black and Robert F. Wagner and from American business leaders such as the Chamber of Commerce. The model for the NRA was Woodrow Wilson's War Industries Board, in which Johnson had been involved too (Ellis Hawley, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly, Princeton University Press, 1966, ISBN 0-8232-1609-8, p. 23). The War Industries Board was developed well before fascism. Due to the timeline fascism can´t have been the model. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-09-01T20:39:00.000Z","author":"Pass3456","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pass3456-2013-09-01T20:39:00.000Z-NRA","replies":["c-LesLein-2013-09-09T00:07:00.000Z-Pass3456-2013-09-01T20:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
Patel wrote: "By contrast, other opponents ... feared that the political programs of Hitler and Roosevelt were connverging. They saw the use of modern mass media to promote politics, large-scale national programs, the rhetorical invocation of the exertions and sacrifices of World War I, and other developments as evidence that the US was becoming more like the Nazi Regime ... After 1945, few observers continued to see these similarities..." He explains that the opponents view was marked by the:
It is a fact that Isaiah Berlin - looking back after WW II - wrote ″The only light in the darkness was the administration of Mr. Roosevelt and the New Deal in the United States.″ (Kiran Klaus Patel, Soldiers of Labor: Labor Service in Nazi Germany and New Deal America, 1933-1945, ISBN 978-0-521-83416-2, Cambridge University Press 2005, p.5). This is reported by Kiran Klaus Patel and several other sources, so it is true. Patel interprets it in the light of the facts that:
Peolple obviously do all sorts of comparisons for a lot of different reasons. The question is wether it does make sense for an encyclopedia to cover all kind of comparison topics. The work of Claude Monet was compared to Cubism though it was not cubism. Donald Trump has been compared to an Orangutan though he isn´t. It seems that we all agree (in accordance with historians) that the New Deal was not fascist. Do we need to stress Godwin's law? --Pass3456 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-09-18T21:02:00.000Z","author":"Pass3456","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pass3456-2013-09-18T21:02:00.000Z-conclusion","replies":["c-The_Four_Deuces-2013-09-19T09:20:00.000Z-Pass3456-2013-09-18T21:02:00.000Z"]}}-->
Pelabuhan Ipswich Ipswich merupakan sebuah kota di Inggris. Kota ini letaknya di bagian timur. Tepatnya di kabupaten Suffolk. Pada tahun 2007, kota ini memiliki jumlah penduduk sebanyak 122.300 jiwa dan memiliki luas wilayah 39,42 km². Kota ini memiliki angka kepadatan penduduk sebesar 8.036,7 jiwa/km². Pranala luar Ipswich Borough Council The Ipswich Society The Broomhill Pool Trust Holy Trinity Church – The Ipswich Waterfront / Docks Church Diarsipkan 2014-02-07 di Wayback Machine. Ip…
David Hillhouse BuelDavid Hillhouse Buel pada 1908Presiden Universitas Georgetown ke-31Masa jabatan1905–1908PendahuluJerome DaughertyPenggantiJoseph J. Himmel Informasi pribadiLahir(1862-07-19)19 Juli 1862Watervliet Arsenal,Troy Barat, New York, A.S.[a]Meninggal23 Mei 1923(1923-05-23) (umur 60)Kota New York, Amerika SerikatMakamPemakaman OakwoodSuami/istriKatherine Frances Powers (m. 1912)HubunganCharles McDougall (kakek)Orang tuaDavid Hi…
Österreich Kapitän Jürgen Melzer Aktuelles ITF-Ranking 21 Statistik Erste Teilnahme 1905 Davis-Cup-Teilnahmen 83 davon in Weltgruppe 17 Bestes Ergebnis HF (1990) Ewige Bilanz 72:83 Erfolgreichste Spieler Meiste Siege gesamt Thomas Muster (45) Meiste Einzelsiege Thomas Muster (36) Meiste Doppelsiege Alex Antonitsch (13) Bestes Doppel Thomas Muster / Alex Antonitsch (9) Meiste Teilnahmen Jürgen Melzer (33) Meiste Jahre Jürgen Melzer (19) Letzte Aktualisierung der Infobox: 24. Jänner 2018 Die…
Article principal : Special Operations Executive. Le Special Operations Executive (« Direction des opérations spéciales ») est un service secret britannique qui opéra pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale dans tous les pays en guerre, y compris en Extrême-Orient. En mars 1941, un groupe qui réalise des raids commando en Norvège, la Norwegian Independent Company 1 (NOR.I.C.1), est organisé sous la direction du Captain Martin Linge. Leur raid initial en 1941 est l'Opération A…
American models Nicole, Erica, and Jaclyn DahmDahm triplets in 1998Playboy centerfold appearanceDecember 1998Preceded byTiffany TaylorSucceeded byJaime BergmanPersonal detailsBorn (1977-12-12) December 12, 1977 (age 45)Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.[1]Height5 ft 8 in (1.73 m)[1] Nicole, Erica, and Jaclyn Dahm, commonly known as Dahm triplets (born in that order[2] on December 12, 1977)[1] are identical triplets from Minnesota. The Dahm triplets h…
French philosopher, theologian, teacher and essayist Emmanuel MounierBorn(1905-04-01)1 April 1905Grenoble, FranceDied22 March 1950(1950-03-22) (aged 44)Châtenay-Malabry, FranceAlma materUniversity of ParisEra20th-century philosophyRegionWestern philosophySchoolContinental philosophyPersonalismNon-conformists of the 1930sMain interestsChristian democracymetaphysicstheologyNotable ideasPersonalismCommunitarianism[1] Part of a series onChristian democracy Organizations List of Ch…
Frederick Peisley Frederick Walter James Peisley (6 December 1904 – 22 March 1975) was a British stage, film and television actor and theatre director whose career spanned five decades. He is known for The Secret of the Loch (1934), Gentlemen's Agreement (1935) and Murder at the Cabaret (1936). His later career was mostly in television. Fred Peisley was born in Finchley in London in 1904, the son of Annie Emily and Walter John Peisley, a baker. Theatre Early stage appearances included The Ment…
Сен-Жермен-ла-Бланш-ЕрбSaint-Germain-la-Blanche-Herbe Країна Франція Регіон Нормандія Департамент Кальвадос Округ Кан Кантон Каан- Код INSEE 14587 Поштові індекси 14280 Координати 49°11′25″ пн. ш. 0°24′34″ зх. д.H G O Висота 60 - 76 м.н.р.м. Площа 2,63 км² Населення 2405 (01-2020[1]) Густота…
Mecca-ColaJenisColaProdusenMecca Cola World CompanyNegara asalPrancisDiperkenalkanNovember 2002Produk terkaitCoca-Cola, Zam Zam Cola, Qibla Cola Mecca-Cola adalah minuman berkarbonasi cita rasa kola. Merupakan produk utama Mecca Cola World Company, dipasarkan sebagai alternatif merek Amerika Serikat seperti Coca-Cola dan Pepsi-Cola. Nama produk ini mengandung transliterasi abjad Latin untuk مكة المكرمة (Makkah al-Mukarramah, atau Makkah, bahasa Inggris:Mecca), kota suci Islam di Arab S…
Financial market where participants can issue new debt or buy and sell debt securities Part of a series onFinancial markets Public market Exchange · Securities Bond market Bond valuation Corporate bond Fixed income Government bond High-yield debt Municipal bond Securitization Stock market Common stock Preferred stock Registered share Stock Stock certificate Stock exchange Other markets Derivatives (Credit derivativeFutures exchangeHybrid security) Foreign exchange (CurrencyExchange rate) C…
RadenPrapto PrayitnoDuta Besar Indonesia untuk SwissMasa jabatan24 Desember 1983 – 14 Maret 1987PresidenSoehartoPendahuluArtati Marzuki-SudirdjoPenggantiHadi ThayebInspektur Jenderal Departemen Dalam NegeriMasa jabatan24 September 1982 – Maret 1984PendahuluEddy SabaraPenggantiSuparni PamudjiDirektur Jenderal Sosial PolitikMasa jabatan29 Agustus 1980 – 24 September 1982PendahuluErman HarirustamanPenggantiTojiman SidikprawiroDirektur Jenderal Pemerintahan Umum dan …
1949 film by Clarence Brown Intruder in the DustDVD coverDirected byClarence BrownScreenplay byBen MaddowBased onIntruder in the Dust1948 novelby William FaulknerProduced byClarence BrownStarringDavid BrianClaude Jarman Jr.Juano HernándezCinematographyRobert SurteesEdited byRobert KernMusic byAdolph DeutschDistributed byMetro-Goldwyn-MayerRelease date November 22, 1949 (1949-11-22) (United States) Running time87 minutesCountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishBudget$988,000[1…
Indian caste Not to be confused with Lohani (disambiguation). LohanaRegions with significant populationsIndia, Pakistan, South Africa, EuropeLanguagesPrimarily Gujarati, Kutchi, SindhiReligionmainly Hinduism and IslamRelated ethnic groupsGujarati people • Sindhi people • Khoja • Memon • Dawoodi Bohras • Sulaymani Bohras • Alavi Bohras Lohana, also referred to as Loharana, Thakkar and Lohrana, are a trading or mercantile jāti.[1][2] Lohanas claim to be descendants of …
2010 Hong Kong filmBlack RansomFilm posterChinese nameTraditional Chinese撕票風雲Simplified Chinese撕票风云TranscriptionsStandard MandarinHanyu PinyinSī Piào Fēng YúnYue: CantoneseJyutpingSi1 Piu3 Fung1 Wan4 Directed byWong JingVenus KeungScreenplay byWong JingProduced byWong JingStarringSimon YamMichael MiuFala ChenCinematographyVenus KeungNg King-manEdited byLee Ka-wingMusic byHenry Lai Wan-manProductioncompanyMega-Vision PicturesDistributed byMega-Vision PicturesRelease date7…
1946 Argentine filmThe SongstressDirected byBenito PerojoWritten byArmando Palacio Valdés (novel) Pascual GuillénProduced byRicardo NúñezStarringImperio Argentina Amadeo NovoaCinematographyAntonio MerayoEdited byJorge GárateMusic byGuillermo CasesProductioncompanyArgentina Sono FilmRelease date5 July 1946Running time76 minutesCountryArgentinaLanguageSpanish The Songstress (Spanish: La maja de los cantares) is a 1946 Argentine musical comedy film directed by Benito Perojo and starring Imperi…
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Attali (homonymie). Commission pour la libération de la croissance françaiseHistoireFondation 27 août 2007Dissolution 2010CadreType CommissionPays FranceOrganisationFondateur Nicolas SarkozyPrésident Jacques Attalimodifier - modifier le code - modifier Wikidata La commission pour la libération de la croissance française, ou, du nom de son président Jacques Attali, la « commission Attali », est une commission chargée par le président de…
Hospital in Northeast, Penang, Malaysia Hospital in Penang, MalaysiaPenang General HospitalHospital Pulau PinangGeographyLocationResidency Road, 10990 George Town, Penang, MalaysiaCoordinates5°24′59″N 100°18′40″E / 5.416517°N 100.311094°E / 5.416517; 100.311094OrganisationFundingPublicTypeGeneralServicesEmergency departmentYesBeds1090HelipadYesHistoryOpened1854LinksWebsiteOfficial website (in Malay) The Penang General Hospital (Malay: Hospital Pulau Pinang) is…
Zamek w Dreźnie Zamek w Dreźnie (2008) Państwo Niemcy Kraj związkowy Saksonia Miejscowość Drezno Styl architektoniczny renesans, barok Położenie na mapie DreznaZamek w Dreźnie Położenie na mapie NiemiecZamek w Dreźnie Położenie na mapie SaksoniiZamek w Dreźnie 51°03′10″N 13°44′13″E/51,052778 13,736944 Multimedia w Wikimedia Commons Strona internetowa Galeria: ZamekDrezno. ZamekDrezno. ZamekDrezno.ZamekDrezno. Zamek Rezydencja Wettynów w Dreźnie (n…
Japanese visual kei rock band For the airport with the ICAO code MUCC, see Jardines del Rey Airport. MuccMucc performing in Paris in 2009Background informationAlso known as69OriginIbaraki Prefecture, JapanGenres Alternative metal nu metal industrial metal[1] metalcore hard rock alternative rock dance-rock grunge DiscographyMucc discographyYears active1997–presentLabelsMisshitsu NeuroseDanger Crue/ShuUniversalSonyGan-Shin (EU)Spinefarm (EU)MembersTatsuroMiyaYukkePast membersHiroSatochiW…
أماديو الأول معلومات شخصية الميلاد 30 مايو 1845(1845-05-30)تورينو الوفاة 18 يناير 1890 (44 سنة)تورينو سبب الوفاة ذات الرئة القصبية مكان الدفن بازيليكا سوبرجا [لغات أخرى] مواطنة مملكة إيطاليا (17 مارس 1861–18 يناير 1890) إسبانيا الديانة كاثوليكية الزوجة ماريا فيتوريا من بوز…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.143.254.164