Talk:Adolf A. Berle

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

It's Adolf not Adolph[edit]

I think the misunderstandings stem from a small number of mislabeled books at Amazon and elsewhere. The vast majority of books, including the original editions written by Berle himself, state his name as Adolf. See [1], [2], [3], and [4]. There _is_ a (fairly weak) case for titling this entry "Adolf A. Berle, Jr." to distinguish him from his dad, "Adolf A. Berle."Haberstr (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Perhaps Adolf A. Berle should be moved to Adolf Berle. Article names should be the name most commonly associated with the article's subject. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Say what?[edit]

Can anyone tell me what the following sentence means:

"In October of 1945, two days after the deposition of president Getulio Vargas, Berle pledged for the freedom of the brazilian communists being incarcerated by the government since the beginning of the month, it was a sign of the New World Order."

"Pledged for the freedom" is thoroughly ambiguous. Was Berle asking they be freed? Guaranteeing their behavior? Pressuring the Brazilian government? And the phrase "it was a sign of the New World Order" is worse. The link takes one to a page about international governance and institutions such as the League of Nations and United Nations. Is this phrase supposed to indicate that Brazil was violating some international law?

I'm minded to remove or drastically rewrite the paragraph, but I hope someone can tell me what was intended.Saintonge235 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use secondary sources--Unpublished papers are NOT useful --no dates, no box numbers make them impossible to check[edit]

Wiki guidelines recommend AGAINST primary sources (such as the Berle papers). Furthermore a vague reference without dates or box numbers means no one can possibly check out the sources; Here's the guideline: Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(from WP:RSPRIMARY "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. ....Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

The Berle Papers run 196,000 pages in 98 thick boxes. No box or page numb ers given here--no quotes provided. The short introduction is an anonymous note by person unknown (they use undergraduate interns to churn these out). His key ww2 work is given 5 short sentences. Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]