Talk:Arsenal of Democracy

Untitled

NOTE: In mid-April 2006 this article was subjected to a peer review in the below talk.

1. A number of concrete suggestions were made for the article development
2. A number were made for materials which didn't belong. (These have been removed)
3. If you are going to expand the article, please review those suggestions and the information they suggest to research first carefully.

We all thank you! FrankB 06:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
32nd President
In office March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945
Vice President	John N. Garner Henry A. Wallace Harry S. Truman
Preceded by	Herbert Hoover
Succeeded by	Harry S. Truman
Personal details
Born	January 30, 1882 Hyde Park, New York
Died	April 12, 1945 Warm Springs, Georgia
Nationality	american
Political party	Democratic
Spouse	Eleanor Roosevelt

Arsenal of Democracy Speech Article Impetus

per Xpost to User_talk:RHaworth, after a flurry of minor adjustments by user: RHaworth in brand new article, including attempt to trasport to wikisource, before I'd matured further. FrankB

Hi! What a lovely way to jack up the edit counter! And me barely in Zzzzland!

There are a few of these FDR chats that are so important that we need the coverage here, IMHO.

If you disagree, I submit then the proper place to debate is on the talk with subsequent Vfd, etc. as the article matures.

I have far too much other work hereon to care much one way or the other, but I was shocked and amazed when searching our whole data base a few nights back failed to turn up this famous phrase.

Besides, my interest is in adding material, not exporting historic events because there is another wiki inadequately cross-searchable giving some coverage. Thus the detailed beginnings of the historical climate before and behind... something many readers browsing might find interesting and continue on from educationally, our focus, N'est pas?
In my opinion, this kind of tying article is one of our greatest advantages over printed encyclopedias and certainly follows in the spirit of WP:Btw.

IMHO, such are doubly important as it's exactly the kind of presentation that gets one to read more, or so I hope to nefariously plot to educate millions. LOL!

No matter, the search failure alone is a rather serious shortcoming considering how many hits it gets with the coresponding google search for same, and wikipedia was missing it's normal prominence therein. (Xposting to Talk:Arsenal of Democracy)

I'm a tad surprised you're unhappy with an article like this on our shared history. If we hadn't had this event, You in the UK would have lost before we got involved.
Best regards, FrankB 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• What is your problem, man? As you can see I have now removed any "improvement" tags I applied to the article. As long as you are happy to separate your article about the speech from the actual text of the speech, then I have no objection to the article as I left it. It seems a very good article. Note that you have mentioned others of his speeches which probably need links to Wikisource.

What is this alleged search failure - aren't these 55 hits enough? -- RHaworth 17:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Counterpoint Answer, No Problemo

• I don't really have a problem, 'man', save perhaps needing to write something in the first place, as my WikiPlate is very full—but with the underconstruction template, and the very recent generation, think you might have waited a bit, or made comments to the talk before taking over and deleting the speech proper. The other edits are fine (e.g. I was aware of the date issue-and once I verified, would have cleaned that up), but you make it hard for the search engine to find the key phrase within the speech by not at least excerpting parts of it.
• For the moment, I've put the corpus back as it stimulates cross thinking toward building the rest, especially the intro. I'm not a historian, but an reader of history with short ADD driven memory, that needs a refresh now and then.
• I tend to agree the full text is uneeded once the article gets beyond draft stage, which this clearly hasn't yet. I'd have been delighted to find you'd filled in the years blow by blow with appropo materials. My scope on wikiP ranges far and wide, and I've no 'ownership' tendancies whatever as many can attest, but do expect a little leeway and basic courtesy when building something new.

Search Points

Arsenal of Democracy is Not prominent in this one: Admittedly, yours is the better search criteria, but I'm an old fart that's still coming up to speed on Google. The equivilent "+arsenal +of +Democracy" on our search engine is where I was amazed and triggered. Don't you think it would be a good idea to anticipate the more unsophisticated searcher's needs? As one, I certainly do!

• Let's get some work done. Enough talk for now.
• I lost 6-7 quality edits the other night in a browser lock-up, and this was but one redlink in that matter. I need to finish this up so I can continue the backtracking and reedits needed as part of that cleaning up that fiasco. I think I need to download another browser before loosing the history trail!
• So, later, OK? Obviously we have somewhat different styles, and I know you've been out there somewhere as I've seen a lot of your edits before this and visited your user page. I'm still a relative newbie learning all the tricks of the trade. If we were all the same, the world would be a less interesting place, No?

Best regards, FrankB 17:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

A post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful of friendly admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP:FrankB

Re: Arsenal_of_Democracy and section Arsenal_of_Democracy#The_address_itself.

0.   (semi-trivial) I was unable to get span/div formatting (italics) to cover the whole text, if someone can fix my fumbling, that would be great!

1. What are the guidelines regarding wikisource vs editorial lattitude. This new article and I would appreciate and answer on that, and a general comment or three on it's general - well, generalities on Talk: Arsenal_of_Democracy . Content, style, usefullness, et. al. from all and sundry, curious and curiouser, etc. I figure to finish the bottom before next weekend (the 21st) and perhaps put it up for additional peer review at that time in the broader forum.
2. The key issues I've got in mind:
   1. ) What more should be covered in the intro section. (Add if you like!)
   2. ) Did the prelude sections read too long, or was the presentation interesting enough to keep (kids esp.) reading.
   3. ) What to do about the speech text itself;

a) Keep all vs.

b) what to excerpt and retain as attention getting hooks to enviegle the unwary reader into the full text, and

c) how will what is left balance against the remaining article.

• I am assuming the 1941 section will be similar to the sections preceding the speech, and the last issue

  4) is cites. In this case, it shouldn't need a lot, IMHO, as most of the presentation is WikiLinks to 'presumably well cited' articles. At the least it checks out against my Crystalized Knowledge as a lifelong reader of history! <G>

3. There is also the little niggle of what 'extraneous content' listed in the chronological sections should or shouldn't be kept. For example, what was going on in and about concentration camps was not widely known until after the war, yet the presentation here includes them as if they were major news stories. There are other similar matters, individual ship sinkings, etc., again which were probably not well known. So if anything is obviously in error philosophically (if I can mangle the meaning of that with your concurrence) that strikes anyone as a bad or unfair thing to list, please (ahem) speak up.

Miscellany:

1. I'm not terribly good at searching things out on the web, if someone could locate an audio clip on this, I think it would be a wonderful addition. It could be playing while the free world tale of woes is being purused.
2. There are a couple of other fireside chats mentioned in the chronologys, and advice on handling those (Yes, be assured, I'll evaluate them for a similar article if this concept proves advisable and desirable. I'm not sure all 30 deserve such treatment, but those were troubled times and many of them will.)
3. The question of Wikiquotes cross links comes to mind, depending what is kept here. There are a handful of other culturally dynamic phrases widely quoted from this speech that come to mind— at least when I read it each time.

Later adds to requests from prior comments and edits...

• • I put an inuse template on the article pending the suggestions here, and assuming a week for comments and suggestions. The invitation was to help me figure out what to do, not do it for me! <G> So 'Thanks Mel'! You are a class guy! (Mel well knows how bad I am at the little details)
  • As of the moment, I've reintroduced the speech in the article at the appropriate time, via a link so a reaction to these forms is now desired.
  • and due to the many copyedits by my good friend Mel Etitis, I would like to add a request now for feedback on the chronological presentation. One year is compressed vertically — and one is not. The original was not. <G>
  • I think the spaced out looks and reads much better, and I've now seen it in two different skins. So please advise, and advise where or how the chronology should be treated.
  • The 'suggestions consensus' so far seems to be evolve this into a text treatment overall, which raises the point-- Chronology sections go where? subpage(s), discard totally, or what? If I do that, it should certainly be outside article space as it will require a massive involvement and research. If so, what should I so with this? Leave in place, or take it off line entirely?

Best regards, FrankB 02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Preliminary Feedback

Thanks for your time and effort here, All of you! FrankB 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you've just arrived, it's too early to stop this wonderful input, so please chip in!!! FrankB

I've been responding one by one with thanks and comments for the valuable input below, but this post says most all of it, if I haven't gotten back to you personally and it's my bedtime. I don't think anything would be gained by any rebuttal or discussion to clarify a point yet, so I'm reserving that sort of thing for late in the coming week. But in general, I'm very pleased with the strip you all are tearing off my hyde. So...

Thanks! Great feedback— the flaws were just the kind of thing I was thinking myself, but the whole idea just came out of the blue when I couldn't find a reference to the title. My search techniques need upgrading, as another managed better. ;(

• The beginning still begs a good solution I think, but I'm most concerned with how to make it encyclopedic rather than an essay. Deep POV waters might lie in that thar' direction!

• Still, the reaction mirrors the reservations I had, and many of the ideas are well beyond my expectations.

• That's why I was looking for the help — this was essentially a preliminary draft of a concept which I could feel as a gestalt when I concieved it — how do I get someone to understand and appreciate what I know is the background of this lovely collection of words, and how do I present that while being constrained by encyclopedic formats?

• Well, this was stab#1 and I'd concieved this technique to avoid potential POV or an essay type structure. But while I'm still not quite sure how to start it, you folks are mostly all coming through with good ideas on how to build it in other ways, which may get me a solution for 'that issue' given a better uniform overall strategy. So thankyou again, or if you're just reading now, in advance. Keep the ideas coming, as the concepts are very valuable. Take it as a challange to come up with something I can do develop history+emotional fears+pace of events+speech into a encyclopedic beginning I can segueway into the suggestions that have preceded yours. If some thought is especially attractive or meritorious, please state it again. or tack in an interleaved note with the original comments.

• I'm going to leave things alone until late in the week after Easter, as these ideas are worth gold.

• Many Thanks! FrankB 06:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest

I'm going to be honest. Roosevelt's speech itself is very interesting and article-worthy, but there isn't really much encyclopedic content about the speech in this article. I'm going to enumerate my suggestions below. (My numbers don't necessarily correspond to the numbers in the previous section.)

1. The full timelines aren't really necessary in this article. It would probably be better to summarize in paragraph format the events closely related to Roosevelt's speech in a section titled "Historical background" or "Important events". Perhaps links to each year's article could be provided for those who want to see full timelines of key events. Example: Full timeline of key events in 1939.
2. The full text of the speech isn't necessary. That's what Wikisource is for. However, important excerpts from the speech should be quoted, and their significance should be explained.
3. Citing reliable sources is always helpful. It greatly improves the reliability of our articles. I would suggest trying to find some reliable analyses of the effects of the speech. That could make the article more interesting and more reliable. Some biographies of Roosevelt might also have some useful information about the events leading up to the speech as well as the speech's results.

I hope my suggestions help. --TantalumTelluride 19:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Article

To the editors of this article......

Don't mind, but currently the article is in awful shape.

1. There's a temporary section title to lead which should never be there. If you are concerned about editing the whole article, you can pick any of the smallest section to edit. Then in the address bar, you can replace "action=edit&section=n" with "...section=0". This will get you to display and edit only the lead. An article should not have a lead title in my opinion.
2. Have you realized how long the first sentence is. Break it into 3 sentences, if not 4. Its completely unreadable.
3. Choice of yellow is poor. Its very difficult for people to read text against such a bright background. Change it to something lighter, preferably a shade of gray.
4. Move all sister project links (wikisource, etc.) to the external links section.
5. Such a long timeline in list format without any mention how any of these events are related to the topic in concern is boring enough for me (In this, others may disagree). Can you make it in paragraph format and not a loose collection of events.

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

More feedback

Hi there - thanks for the invitation for some feedback. Here’s some of my suggestions:

I have to echo some of the sentiments expressed above. It is not very clear what this article aims to convey, and I suspect what would be necessary is to narrow the scope a little bit. Some of the historical events should be relegated to other articles, and subsequently referenced from this page. In my mind, the article should focus solely on the speech that Roosevelt’s speech – its political, social, and economic impact, as well as the linguistic and aesthetic elements which were used to convey the president’s sentiments.

The article should contain some information and preliminaries about the speech – the speech writer, its duration, where it was broadcast, how much of the public knew about the speech. The reaction from the general public and the international community should be noted. The opening of the speech mentions “national security” – in what sense is this speech relevant to the world today? The article needs to establish its notability from a historical and context.

There are an exceptional number of literary devices and allusions used in the speech. Some of the imagery and personifications that Roosevelt invokes are particularly poignant. The article should mention why these themes were important at the time, and whether these have had any lasting impact on the American perception and understanding of concepts such as freedom, liberty, and democracy. The article should explain why the general public resonated with these themes.

Some comparisons between similar speeches made by other Roosevelt and other presidents should be made, or minimally referenced in the article. For example, part of the speech mentions

’’… if the United States of America interfered with or blocked the expansion program of these three nations- a program aimed at world control—they would unite in ultimate action against the United States.”

In what sense was “world control” interpreted? Why was the terminology introduced, and how is this historically relevant? At which point did the United States perceive itself as being threatened, and how did this impact its international policies? Note that the speech also mentions mass enslavement in the subsequent paragraph. Why was this intensifier used?

The relevance of the Monroe Doctrine needs to be addressed – this is something which Roosevelt mentions as a partial justification for his reasoning. The article should also analyze the structure of the speech itself – for example, is it argumentative or persuasive? Which historians have taken which perspective? What are the current established commentaries regarding this speech?

It is particularly interesting that the speech mentions Ireland, Hawaii and the Azores. Perhaps a map of the world with these places indicated would be beneficial for the reader to see why these were mentioned. Under what context would mentioning Ireland help Roosevelt’s cause? Also, what American values are outlined the speech? These should be summarized – for example, one line mentions liberty, religion, and hope. The article should also mention what the perceived role of a democratic nation is – was this speech a turning point in American history?

Anyway, this should contain plenty of ideas for article improvement. Much of it can be written very neutrally if supported by various citations and references. I hope this helps! --HappyCamper 20:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

More comments

Genrally I'm in agreement with much of the above; in fact I've already done some work on the article, removing the text of the talk, tidying the summary, etc. I've begun tidying the timeline, but here again I agree that it shouldn't really be here — a paragraph explaining the context of the talk should be enough.

There's an awful lot of overlinking, and the general Wikipedia style (headings, etc.) needs to be adhered to. I don't think that you can ask other editors to fill in your sources...

I'll keep looking, and come back with any further thoughts. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried tidying the summary, in fact, but some of it still defeats me. What is the material in inverted commas, for example? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 4Peekbacks: Arsenal of Democracy FrankB

A bit more comment

The comments above show many good points, and I'm pretty much in line with TantalumTelluride. My main concerns are these:

- I'm afraid the list dominates too much space. It a good list, and very relevant elsewhere, but in this particular case, a few blocks of text highlighting the main points of the historical background would be enough. If a page exists listing the main events leading up to World War II (it must be around somewhere), a link should be added to it.

- The actual full text of the speech belongs in Wikisource, but important extracts of it should be quoted and commented. The commentary and analysis is the essential element in this article. Try finding information to highlight the key issues raised here. What is FDR's message? Why is he saying it? What is of interest for his audiences (the American people, Britain, Germany etc.)? Who is he actually addressing - the American people or Europe? How is the material presented? What does he expect will be the result - for the United States, for the world, and for himself? Does the speech benefit anybody, if so, who, how and why? Is he trying to save the world, guarantee a reelection or something different? Is he already thinking about the situation when the war will be over? E.g. the lend-lease agreement meant the U.S. replacing Britain as the leading naval power in the Western Hemisphere when Britain was pretty much forced into handing over a number of bases to the U.S. Well, I don't know. I'm also a bit curious if he wrote the text himself, or if a member of his staff did it.

- A link to the actual recording should be added. So far, I've found this page: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s2/Time/Marcy/fdrsenal.html (Real Player in a decent recording). The article should also link to Wikisource, but this has already been taken care of.

To sound a bit like one of my professors: Never lose sight of the "WH-words" (who, what, when, why etc.) Or the boiled-down version: "ask a question and answer it." I'm not trying to scare you, but trying to present a number of issues you should keep in mind when reading about the material.

It is an interesting topic. Best of luck. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

fork

I am sorry but User:Fabartus seems to be using this article as a vehicle to create a fork of various existing articles on WWII. The article should be radically chopped down. Mention of other historical events should be restricted to those which directly influenced the speech and those which, other sources agree, were a direct result of the speech. -- RHaworth 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much irrelevant iformation in the article, but I don't think he's trying to intentionally create a fork at all. He isn't sure what kind of information to include in the article because he wants to avoid NPOV violation. In fact, in the requests he sent out to various user talk pages, he specifically asked for help on cutting out the irrelevant events in the timelines. This article is still in the early stages of development. It will improve over time. --TantalumTelluride 19:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• re: INTRO - despite promise to self to hold my peace, I thought it best to:

(Fix up the first draft intro into a better state. It's all still just a startFrankB)

• Keep the comments coming folks!
  * Mr. R. Haworth, I'm not sure what I was trying to accomplish save to cover something (impulsively? true! — I am ADD/ADHD after all, and say so quite plainly on my user page.) that deserves coverage. The whole is a very preliminary draft, and the best stab I could make when you started editing it. We've discussed some of that on your talk, so please don't ascribe motivations to me. I can do that myself, and am quite open about such.
• Keep in mind that I aknowledge that this should have been created off line, and the intro (even newly changed) is still just a stub, IMHO. This whole thing was a knee-jerk reaction to ugly redlinks, then consequently pushed forward by RHaworth's jumping in objecting on behalf of WikiSource, etc.; and so I abandoned most of my PLANNED EDITS for the end of the week (where I have multiarticle projects coming out of the nose and ears), to get it into somekind of shape. This was just a start, needing further inspiration.
• I'm inclined to pull it into user space given the scope of changes needed per the above, so comments as to whether that is necessary would be welcome, given the criticisms we all share, which I endorsed if not directly, then by asking all of you here for input. I HAD MY RESERVATONS, and share most of the above, even if I can't ennunciate them quite so well. OTOH, the ideas put forth are very good, and these have made this ad hoc appeal for input very gratifying.
• I've fixed up the Intro, which IIRC, was essentially my first 20 minute effort.

Thanks Much to all, old time WikiFriends, or New! FrankB 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Later adds to requests from prior comments and edits...

• • I put an inuse template on the article pending the suggestions here, and assuming a week for comments and suggestions. The invitation was to help me figure out what to do, not do it for me! <G> So 'Thanks Mel'! You are a class guy! (Mel well knows how bad I am at the little details)
  • As of the moment, I've reintroduced the speech in the article at the appropriate time, via a link so a reaction to these forms is now desired.
  • and due to the many copyedits by my good friend Mel Etitis, I would like to add a request now for feedback on the chronological presentation. One year is compressed vertically — and one is not. The original was not. <G>
  • I think the spaced out looks and reads much better, and I've now seen it in two different skins. So please advise, and advise where or how the chronology should be treated.
  • The 'suggestions consensus' so far seems to be evolve this into a text treatment overall, which raises the point-- Chronology sections go where? subpage(s), discard totally, or what? If I do that, it should certainly be outside article space as it will require a massive involvement and research. If so, what should I so with this? Leave in place, or take it off line entirely?

(Bottom Post duplicated in RFC request list above at same time)FrankB 02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Two more cents

For the comment jar here. :) I agree with this comment, made above: Mention of other historical events should be restricted to those which directly influenced the speech and those which, other sources agree, were a direct result of the speech. I think the timeline and the section "before America enters the war" could be nixed from the article altogether. The 30s/early 40s isolationist stance of America, the lend-lease program, etc., would all be better addressed in separate articles about American policy related to WWII and perhaps linked to this article in a "See Also" section. The paragraph you have here:

In terms of leadership, the speech is frequently seen as the "next step" in a several stage process in awakening a somnolent, inward-looking country that had been isolationist and self-absorbed culturally for the preceding two decades. While the United States Navy seemed strong and was widely percieved to guarantee the Western Hemisphere safe from Axis agressions– the United States Army numbered barely two hundred and fifty thousand officers and enlisted men as the 1930s came to a close – the foreign wars off in Europe, Africa, and Manchuria (China) seemed of little importance to the average American still reeling from the horrors of the depression.

...is a great jumping-off point; you could elaborate on the specific events and treaties Roosevelt references in his speech to explain why it is important.

Those are my first impressions, in a it's-3am-I-am-supposed-to-be-up-for-Easter mindset. I did want to look at the article and give some feedback this evening, though. I hope it is helpful. I would like to say that I think an idea of having articles about the fireside chats is wonderful. A lot of people, myself included, would love to read through them and historical guidance on the issues surrounding them is appreciated. Have a good night! Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 06:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the timeline?

I'll be brief: I fail to see why this article need the timeline at all. Merge it with existing timeline or spin off to its own article, but it's bizarre that 90% of the current article is basically a giant 'see also' section. Sure they are relevant - so is the entire history of the world. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 07:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know that I would even dignify it as an article. It's more of a protodraft than anything else, an outline of one possible way this things that might have to be incorporated when it is being written; whether or not any one item is to be included is as yet to be determined. As how the article evolves depends on where it should be aimed and focused. Two of the main commentators above have given me a whole new slant on it, as it were looking at it from the technical standpoint as a speech, as a work, as a finely crafted artifact of the mind, and or the persons behind it. I was quite surprised by that 'outside my box' thinking, but someone's education is certainly shining through— perhaps even brilliantly! I'm impressed, and humbled. I find myself thinking that way working with Mel at times, and the feeling is both thrilling and somewhat dismaying.

My technical track and general language skills including an extremely high SAT score in English, and those allowed me to 'Advance Place' out of what are many normal liberal arts common experiences in language arts, including especially most course work where I had to write any 'term papers', or take courses where such analysis is taught— so some of that sort of analytical thinking is something I can follow if someone leads the way, but not necessarily come up with on my own—I simply lack the training focused instead on Moles, and Avagadro's number, and Fourier Transforms, integro-differential equations, and the odd bit of economics, which is where I ended up spending my 'AP' credits in the liberal arts— I still had to take X number of LA courses, but most of mine ended up as electives. I'd almost be embarrased to relate how few 'term type' papers I had to write in undergraduate college, as most all writing I did have to do involved Laboratory reports and the standard and format is to a far lower threshold than my friends plowing through the liberal arts courses one after the other.

Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Math, Engineering analysis just don't require anything like the papers routinely required of English, History, Economics, Communications, Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, Philosophy, or such majors. After reading HappyCamper's suggestions in particular, and a couple of others following, I'm frankly not sure I should be one to write this article. I don't have the training! Yeah, I can sling words together and make adequate phrases, usually remember not to dangle my participles (whatever those are), and mostly avoid spelling errors, but while my passion and avocation is history, it is not my training. So I wonder whether this is really something I should take on at all.

• I mentioned several times above, that this thing just came at me out of the blue— the timeline is in essence, material we know through hindsight to be historically pertinent, or was then prominent in the news as headlines, and presumably on the minds of some segments of the population. As I copied it over from the pertinient wikiyears, I thought of it more as an outline of what might have been impacting people, and which should be background for the 'story behind the speech' from the historical events standpoint, as such, it as much a rough outline as much as anything else, though I did expand and elaborate and tie various things within it, it was also a great refresher in the sins of the aggressors as many such details are easy to forget in the hurly-burly of life. But I didn't like it either, it was just a way I started to organize what is obviously going to be a large effort.

As both versions of the quick and dirty introduction indicate, the real importance of the speech was the farsighted leadership evinced by FDR in that he managed to lever a self-focused people into one that would in the next 24-36 months totally shatter all records in production and training, so that by mid-1943 we could field new ships for the one's lost, were sending fleets of planes abroad in both directions, and starting counter-attacks in no less than three locals - McArthur's campaigns in New Guinea, Guadalcanal, and North Africa. At the same time we were barely holding on in the awful clash known as the Battle of the Atlatic, and industry somehow kept pace with all the sinkings. That's a remarkable turn around for a country that didn't even have a tank regiment in 1939! But to me, the brooding mood that should be the proper background theme is the din of the bad news from abroad going into the collective subconscious that was about to elect this man for his third time. The US citizens put their faith in him, and a few short weeks later, he turns around and delivers this wake-up call to the country.

So that's the long version of where the timeline fits in. Don't focus on it, as much as the history within it. Except for a couple of culture highlights (e.g. Orson Wells, panicing the country), I merely took the snippets, gave them a source check in the linked article, examined them with some basic cross checking, and made sure I understood the significance and the context of each. Well, you don't have to be much smarter than a stump to realize that will take some time, and it did, and then I wasn't sure what might be done next. The answers are extremly interesing. FrankB 11:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Turn the timeline into a paragraph of prose. Then maybe something about the writing of the speech, and who he was influenced by. Then the existing section on the speech itself, and then the impact.--HereToHelp 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Important

Definitely an important broadcast. Needs ocncentration why he needed to say particualr things. Who advised him. The timeline looks like an other topic or article. Midgley 19:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Request Move of Arsenal of Democracy (Killed)

This is Cross Post from user talk:fabartus (when I was last on WikiP) per advice Last Saturday 22 April 2006:

(This duplcates 1st post and title on Mel's user talk page, I guess we'll clutter my page, since his is newly archived <G>)

• Things seem to have wound down on the ad-hoc RFC. As such, I think this ought to be moved into a user subpage of the same title, preferably Sunday if you're working wiki, sooner or later if you aren't. That should give any late arrivals time, and based on the comments, it's going to take a lot of work and development going forward. Thanks. FrankB 06:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any grounds for moving the article to your User name-space; do you mean that you want to copy it there? If so, just create a suitably names page and cut-and-paste the text to it. (Why do you want to do that, though?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the resounding voice of the RFC is that the article is in general not encyclopedic enough as written, and to evolve it in line with the suggestions will take a whole lot more time than I'm going to have anytime in the near future. My wikiTime is going to be a lot more constrained going forward. Among other things spring has arrived in New England, and the yard work and construction plans around here are going to take me out of the office as much as possible for the next several months.

Moving it also follows from the acknowledgement that I should have created it in a sandbox in the first place had I thought it through and planned it from the initial thought rather than having been acting in late night 'fatigued edit' mode spurred by my ADHD.

To evolve it in any one of the directions indicated is going to require a whole series of major changes, performed incrementally over time as I nail down research elements (which also will entail at least skimming several FDR biographies—no small task there!), et. al. and having the Talk available with it seems the best course as the clear consensus seems to be that it is not ready for prime time.

I even indicated said thoughts (about moving it) when I annoted the RFC (sic— this is literally the above talk page preceding this post; fab 060424) questions and concerns list early last week, and specifically asked whether it should be kept as is, or moved, and not a single party has posted a note either way. Shrug.

Is there some policy or guideline I am missing about 'withdrawing it' for such an major overhaul? I have no desire to leave it hacked up and in pieces available to the world as I work through it, as it will certainly be a back-burner trial and error process and probably almost certainly entail false starts and reworks of entire sections if the major prelimary evolution is as I percieve it, my responsibility.

As I annoted in my last bottom note therein, this will involve blowing off a lot of rust and a large learning curve for me, and the suggested evolutions 'thought-wise' are all outside my general training, which means an additional learning curve and more false starts, I imagine.

In light of that litany, what do you advise? A formal WP:Afd? I'd have thought that WP:CSD guideline under section 'Articles' criteria #3', as do perhaps also 'General Criteria' #2 and #7 — taken together would suggest this is permissible, and the best and allowable course in the necessary iterim all things considered. Agreed, the fact that some others yourself included have made some edits muddies the waters of the 'General Criteria #7', and I guess a strict interpretation of #2 doesn't strictly apply as this was a deliberate first attempt, but I don't see this as violating the spirit of such give the huge volume of work it needs.

There is no definite need for haste, either way so what do you suggest? Poll some others first? Nominate for Afd-->Move, or what? FrankB 14:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(Since Mel wasn't 'working' at that time, I went ahead and polled several others and almost immediately got these next two messages, plus a query from HereToHelp. FrankB)

If you want to, you can work on a draft of the article in your user space, but there is no need to delete the main article in the meantime. Someone else might come along and fix the article before you get a chance to do it yourself. If anyone does edit the main article while you're working on it in your user space, be sure not to erase any valuable contributions when you finally "publish" your improved article to mainspace. --TantalumTelluride 17:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest splitting the page in two. Move the list to a subpage of your user page, and use it for a better purpose. Let the actual text stay and write a bit longer. Or perhaps tag it as a stub. In any case, I think the chronology should be moved away from the article. Keep it on a separate userpage, and find something useful to do with it. :) Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well that writings been on the wall from before I contacted you all! <G> FrankB

OK- that's the Final word' as copied from User_talk:HereToHelp#Looking_for_some_procedural_guidance_on_.27AoD.27

Want to move the 'Cooly recieved' proto-article into sandbox, as the feedback points out that the amount of work to evolve it in the directions suggested are going to be very time intensive, and that just won't fit my schedule in the near future... The article is pretty much a concept that 'flunked' as you can readily see in the talk. Which is why I invited input in the first place. FrankB 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I've just gotten contrary suggestions from two who made a large effort to review the article, so that makes three with Mel's reaction this morning.

So you need not bother any further. I didn't and don't know that it's current form fits well but apparently it will suffice for now. Sorry for the trouble. FrankB 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all, I can live with this. FrankB 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to this post above, there were a few parrallel exchanges on user_Talk:HereToHelp, which ended with the one listed above (i.e. agreeing the consensus above), since I recieved extremely quick answers on the queries.

• I forsee no big time block to work on this going forward in the near future, but I will probably pick up a biography or three on FDR soon (perhaps even tonight) and begin on researching some of the background questions posed in the above suggested development.
• Until I recieve better consensus and suggestions on the timeline sections, I'll be cutting that out into user:fabartus/WW-II_Timeline (I'm doing that immediately after saving this 'preview', and will add a top note on this page to see the RFC suggestions before editing.
• I'd appreciate input as to what others think on it's utility as far as another article (perhaps several by year would be even better). It strikes me as a good reference for the student. FrankB 19:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

introduction paragraph

The intro doesn't tell you what the Arsenal of Democracy is until later on. It just needs some restructuring. -- penubag  (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arsenal of Democracy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828141002/http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130103/OPINION01/301030336 to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130103/OPINION01/301030336
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406013244/http://www.ushistory.org/us/50d.asp to http://www.ushistory.org/us/50d.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Audio links

The 2nd audio file is reaching past the text on the right border. The format should match that of the first audio file that is linked which fits in line with the article. Sideriver84 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

company rankings are not accurate

The Consolidated Steel Corporation was a shipbuilder during WW2, as was Permanente Metals. Nowakki (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You might add "ships" to those manufacturers with a source citation confirming those products were produced during the June 1940 to September 1944 time period of the list. Thewellman (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

i wonder where the type of products comes from. consolidated steel for example never produced any steel. they are a fabricator. they buy steel and turn it into buildings (before the war), ships (during), pipelines (after). i believe permanente metals did something with magnesium, but still, they ran the Richmond Shipyards. Some of this is plainly obvious and you don't need a source citation, because the company is well known for doing X during WW2. The list of products looks like someone took a wild guess without looking at any sources in the first place. Nowakki (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The type of products is what was listed in the source. As you point out, the listed products may be an example rather than comprehensive. Changing the sourced listing without indicating the source of the change may confuse the source of that information. There is some ambiguity about the term "steel". The material is typically transferred in a manufactured shape, so the term may inclusively describe differing shapes of the same material. Aside from the shipyards built during the war, might the pre-war Los Angeles ironworks owned by Consolidated Steel have fabricated steel parts like pipes or hull plating used by other shipyards prior to completion of the company shipyards at Wilmington, California, and Orange, Texas? Do you have a source indicating they did not? Thewellman (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

you are not the one who added the product types, it came from another user. are you sure these are quotes from the source? Nowakki (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

there is also this:

https://www.google.de/books/edition/Alphabetic_Listing_of_Major_War_Supply_C/aszHWCI2-rcC?hl=de&gbpv=0

in 4 volumes (3 books, one book on books.google.com contains 2 volumes)

there is also a version of this listing from 1943.

the list is VERY comprehensive, but very sloppy (you have to guess a lot) and also not terribly accurate.

anyway. consolidated built hundreds of millions worth of ships. i believe also 5-inch gun mounts.

what they didn't do was turn iron ore into steel. so they were not a producer of steel. of pipes, sure. but i don't think in any meaningful quantity either. Nowakki (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Alas, it appears I have fallen prey to the type of confusion I was attempting to avoid. You are correct. I cannot verify the materials listed were from the cited source, because another editor added that information subsequent to my edit. I have requested a source citation for the manufacturers you noted, and I encourage you to similarly request sources for other items you believe to be incorrect. Thewellman (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

a bandaid measure. what is needed is the original document. the information would be very useful to have. the information that is now there is the result of the best effort of a random editor, an effort bad enough to leave gaping holes. if you know how, add a maintenance tag for the whole section to that effect (that the original source is sought).

the ranking is often cited, also outside of wikipedia, and given its informative value, this is how we should leave it IMO. as opposed to removing all the OR of product types and wiping it clean, leaving only the ranking. then it will never get done right. Nowakki (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm uncertain which "original document" you mean; but if you are referring to the source of the products appended to the listing of manufacturers from the 1962 publication of Harvard Business School by Peck & Scherer, I suggest you contact User:Rjensen who added that information and is still an active Wikipedia editor. Thewellman (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

what are the chances that 2 wikipedians edit the same article on the same date, having the same ultra-rare book in their hand?

@Rjensen: clicked a few links and made it up, but i am not blaming him for the fact that wikipedia hasn't got it right in the 10 years that followed, or that you on the same day, didn't look into the book a second time to correct his guesswork. Nowakki (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not add the listing from Peck, & Scherer, The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Economic Analysis (1962) -- it was added by User:Thewellman on April 15 2013. See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Arsenal_of_Democracy&diff=prev&oldid=550487693 What I did do (five hours later ) was annotate the list telling what each company made. See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Arsenal_of_Democracy&diff=next&oldid=550535792 for what I did. Note that Permanente Metals made magnesium bombs used in firebombing Tokyo. see Wilson, Mark R. "Making "Goop" Out of Lemons: The Permanente Metals Corporation, Magnesium Incendiary Bombs, and the Struggle for Profits during World War II" online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/23701421 Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

the problem is that according to the "Alphabetical Listing of Major War Supply Contracts", Permanente Metals produced less than $20m worth of bombs and $920m worth of ships. Nowakki (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

the solution is that among both scholars and the general public, the bombs --firebombing of Tokyo--get far more attention than the anonymous ships. Rjensen (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

i think the list should accurately reflect what the companies produced. not what misconceptions about military production the general public and scholars have. Nowakki (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia deals with important issues regarding wartime issues--and the bombing of Tokyo is one of those "big" issues that are relevant today (with the bombing of civilian targets in Ukraine). Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

i guess we are pulling in different directions. on account that it is a section in the famous roosevelt speech article, i think i will take my concerns elsewhere. Nowakki (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)