Talk:Works Progress Administration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TVA ?[edit]

Someone might want to investigate the statement that the WPA was responsible for the TVA.

I am almost certain that the Public Works Administration (the PWA, which was *not* the WPA) was the agency involved in building projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority, Hoover Dam, etc.

Wahkeenah 13:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Broken Houston City Hall Link[edit]

I would fix the broken link so that it would link to a picture of it available at the Houston article, but it has bad copyright status. Any ideas? Mihirgk 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??[edit]

Wasn't the WPA set up by Congress in response to a request by Roosevelt... It's what my textbook says (A History of the United States, Boorstin and Kelley). This book has not made an error like this before, so would someone please tell me which is right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.146.136 (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Howard pp 106-7. Congress passed funding bills every year for the WPA, but did not lay out the structure or mission of the agency; FDR did that. Rjensen 12:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PWA[edit]

I know that the PWA was declared unconstitutional in 1935 but i don't know when, was this set up as a similar Administration (they seem very similar!) with a different name to bypass Supreme Court ruling? Murdochious 09:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor Ampitheaters[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to help a friend with a college project and I was wondering if anyone had a list of outdoor ampitheaters built by the WPA program. If so can someone either post it or send me a link on my talk page. Thanks for the help! --Lekogm 22:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection[edit]

I object to the statement that the WPA was "manipulated" by left-wingers. This sounds like a Fox News cheap shot. While HUAC held hearings into communist influence in the WPA, it never found any -- the hearings were a "show trial" designed to build the political carers of a few Congresional blow-hards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.65.82 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPA Bird Houses[edit]

We have seen many bird houses located throughout the back roads of Kansas. It was our understanding that they were a WPA project but we cannot find any info. Does anyone know anything about a bird house WPA project? We were told that they were primarily to help maintain the blue bird population. Any help will be appreciated. janelle@cla-mar.com (please specify WPA on subject line. Thanks 24.255.173.68 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the WPA and the Arts[edit]

It would be very worthwhile for someone to write an article on the WPA's role with regard to the arts. The subject is barely touched on here, and yet culturally very important to the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.1.183 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and werent there a bunch of really great paintings/posters for it? they looked like dreamy utopian propaganda for american progress. i'd like to see a few here 76.202.249.19 (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stone carving by WPA Workers[edit]

I am seeking information about the rectangular stone plaques that were used in stone walls built by the WPA on the road up to the summit of Bear Mountain, New York, overlooking the Hudson River. In the stone wall there remain four such plaques, each one being about 14 inches by 20 inches and containing the following deeply carved words and figures: W P A 1935. The date appears directly below the acronym. I'd appreciate any information about how these plaques came to be carved and where they were carved and by whom (i.e. WPA sculptor or stone mason,etc.). Thanks.--~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blongstreth (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date WPA was created[edit]

President Roosevelt's executive order establishing the WPA was issued on May 6, 1935 — not in April of 1935 as stated in this article. On April 8, 1935 the President signed the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, a joint resolution that Congress passed to provide provide funding for relief purposes and which gave the President authority to establish the WPA.Joachim57 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I have just undone what appears to have been an act of vandalism by "Grandma Minnie". John Sauter (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of WPA[edit]

Back in the mid 1990s, while my wife and I were traveling through West Texas, we came across a plaque displayed on rock fence around a school yard. The plaque claimed that the rock fence and school had been built as a "World Progress Administration" project. Both my wife and I saw the plaque and we took pictures, which we cannot find. After many Google searches, I have come up with a number of definitions for WPA: Works Progress Administration, Works Projects Administration, and a very few references to World Progress Administration. Does anyone know a history for the name "World Progress Administration"? 216.244.61.187 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administration and scope[edit]

To whom did the enabling legislation give the authority to decide which projects got funding? Who was eligible for a job? How were workers moved back into the private sector? Why were workers capped at 30 hours per week? -- Beland (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delano?[edit]

umm.... delanor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.219.88 (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-it is actually Delano :P
I looked it up in "A People and a Nation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.247.68 (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worker Profile ==> Women in the WPA[edit]

Is it me, or does the worker profile section not actually contain much general information on the profile of workers in the WPA, but specifically information on the kinds of women in the WPA. Any objections to changing the title of that section?

Rflrob (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC) rflrob 2009-11-29[reply]

Questions on WPA Adminsitration[edit]

Were WPA projects managed by public employees or by private contractors? When a road or building was constructed who ordered supplies and set work schedules (i.e. decided what day to build forms, to set steel, and to pour concrete). Who designed the projects? No doubt there were qualified people around who were unemployed but could they be found and organized into design or management teams? Just because you need a job doesn't mean you have the skills to design a roof truss, calculate the gravel and asphalt needed for a mile long road, or can figure out how many workers are needed to build a hundred feet of concrete wall.

A few years later, during WWII, the military model was to designate a project administration team, then hire contractors to do the actual construction: airfield, barracks, etc. That would probably be a good model if there were a WPA in today's economy. There are many unemployed construction people and most companies have unused or mothballed capacity. All they'd have to do would be hire back their laid off workers and crank up the idle bulldozers. Tldoran (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Read the "Criticism" section. Apparently there's not a single criticism of the WPA where it's defenders don't have the last word. The criticism section is filled to the brim with straw men who are knocked down with ease. Surely the WPA was not a perfect program? Surely it's detractors had some valid points? Surely giving a job to everyone who needs one will prevent, to a certain extent, the private market from hiring? If wiki is to be truly NPOV it's on articles like this that it needs to start. --CptBuck (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nobody would make money by hiring the bottom rung as long as there was a next-to-the-bottom rung full of unemployed people. They were trapped. We see something like this emerging in 2011--long term unemployed who send out thousands of resumes and can't get hired. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then how did they get hired in the end? Or did I miss that the WPA is still around somewhere? Again, if the WPA wasn't perfect, it follows that some criticism of it should be valid. Good luck finding that in this article, instead all you find are straw men. ----CptBuck (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WW2 changed everything. retraining programs began. Government cost-plus contract made it profitable to hire every possible person. The better skilled younger men were off to military. hence industry finally hired the hard core unemployed. Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And no one has ever objected to that narrative with sufficient objectivity to get any recognition on this page? If John Steinbeck can be used as a succesful retort to the "shovel leaners" can I use Louis Armstrong who sang, in 1940, ""Sleep while you work, rest while you play, lean on your shovel to pass the time away, at the WPA." Have you read the criticism section Rjensen? It's pretty objectively non-objective. A criticism section should have some, you know, criticism. --CptBuck (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
why is CptBuck so hostile to the WPA--perhaps he is unaware that Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman admired it (it funded the Reagan and Friedman families in hard times). the "criticism" section includes the main criticisms levied, especially its political role. Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I hostile to the WPA? You have no idea. I'm hostile to the criticism section, which contains no actual criticism. And I am being debated by someone who believes that no such criticism is valid. If that's the case Rjensen, why don't you do what I was considering and just delete the criticism section, since you believe no such criticism is valid, and I believe the section is absurd. --CptBuck (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is little actual criticism there because in the almost 70 years since the WPA, there was little in the way of political criticism of the program. Yes, there was some criticism, but it was very minor compared to the massive political and popular support it had and the generally favorable view history has had of it. At the time it was quite popular, and as was noted, even conservative icons like Ronald Reagan admired it. It was hardly preventing the private sector from creating jobs, it was created in the peak of the Great Depression, when unemployment was around 21% (twice what it was at even the worst part of the recent economic trouble). Jobs just plain weren't out there, and it was not because the government was keeping people from being hired. Note that the program was ended during World War II, when the vast increase in defense spending and military recruitment meant that other jobs were available. You're going to find that much of the criticism of the program is revisionist history from early 21st century conservatives or '50's era McCarthyites who scream "socialism" at every government program and see "communists" behind every shadow. --Wingsandsword (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The WPA hired men with the weakest work habits who could not get regular jobs." This statement is not at all warranted by the text in its footnotes, two of which only suggest that their authors believed there was a perception of laziness among contemporary employers, while the third suggests that the author believed those perceptions were not without merit "to some extent". It seems as though the editor that did this was trying to make up for the weakness of their cites with volume to justify taking a harsher tone against the WPA. I'm going to change this line so that its citations actually provide support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.9.158 (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoveling for 15 minutes[edit]

As a worker who shoveled this past summer for over 30 minutes at a time, multiple times per day, over several weeks, I find the propaganda about people not being able to shovel for 15 continuous minutes completely fatuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.10.83 (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work Projects Administration -- Work should be singular, Projects should be pluralized[edit]

The WPA changed from Works Progress Administration to Work Projects Administration -- note the plural "Projects," as opposed to the singular "Project" found in this article, and singular "Work" as opposed to plural "Works." I'll cite this National Archives page as a reference: http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/069.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.188.212 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image[edit]

I have at least temporarily replaced the lead image (which was File:WPA_Main_Image.jpg) because it is at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_May_20#File:WPA_Main_Image.jpg claiming it is a non-free album cover (a pastiche of a WPA poster) not a copy of genuine poster. This looks plausible to me. Thincat (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is presented as authentic WPA art by WPA historian Richard Friswell in a scholarly article "FDR's New Deal and the Works Progress Administration" in Arttes Magazine March 8, 2011 online here Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How fascinating. Never having heard of the WPA I've had a wonderful time browsing. I had no idea the New Deal was so eclectic. I had looked at LoC here, Commons here, Google and TinEye but hadn't found anything very definite (or your source). In the Artes Magazine article this image is the only one not attributed in any way and the image is called cdcoversillustrationinspirationvector-03d2fe16e7a61004c76625fab93d3b39_h.jpg which is curious. It may well be simply alluding to the CD cover being inspired by (and copied from) an original poster. What a shame the article does not explain. As I said at PUF, I really can't judge. I see they produced "nearly 240,000 prints from 12,500 original designs" so there is a lot to look through! Thincat (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed an enquiry via the band's website. Thincat (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's quite a bit of a shock. I've had a quick reply to my email. It says the image on the WPA cover is based on the “Work Promotes Confidence” WPA poster ( http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/98518393/ ), but the cover was designed by Alphabet Arm graphic design ( http://www.alphabetarm.com/cdartdirection/wpa/ ). It clearly is creative enough to attract copyright (and in my opinion not to be suitable for this article). I didn't enquire about any licence to use the cover because I had come to assume it was a direct copy of a poster. Anyway, I don't think that is relevant here. I think deletion will be appropriate and inevitable but I won't personally rush into this immediately. Thincat (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background section[edit]

I contributed a "Background" section to provide context for the establishment of the WPA, which I believe is needed. I am confused at it being reverted as original research and without reliable sources. — WFinch (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you don't explain anything about why Congress or FDR or Hopkins acted as they did in 1935. Please do not rely on your reading of a handful of primary sources--the Wiki rule is to use standard secondary sources like Leuchtenberg, Freidel, Schlesinger, Jason Smith. Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you found that the entire section required deletion. — WFinch (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not based on the good scholarship. For example, there's not a word on why Roosevelt federalize the program, taking it away from the state-based FERA. – let me add that Nick Taylor wrote a good popular history, but it's not based on the advanced scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Background section was a timeline of events leading up to the establishment of the WPA, to provide context. The chronology section of Taylor's book was one of the sources—the book was already present in the article as a reference—and those dates, names and figures are objective and verifiable elsewhere.
If you felt original research was present, the sentences in question should have been tagged so they could be given attention. Your noting that in contributing the Background section I "don't explain anything about …" or that "there's not a word about …" indicates that the section needed more information. Instead, you deleted it altogether. — WFinch (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The background is covered in depth at New Deal. The section is scattershot dealing mostly with different topics. It ignores all the scholarship. It does not say why FERA and CWA had to be replaced. It does not mention Dem party. It does not cover PWA and the rivalry Ickes-Hopkins. It says more about 1933 and First New Deal and does not mention Second New Deal., It tells very little about the WPA. relying on a popular book (Taylor) is unwise--he is strong on stories & human interest & weak on scholarship. I recommend reading a bio of Hopkins. Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Works Progress Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Works Progress Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works Progress Administration lists?[edit]

Thoughts on having lists of Works Progress Administration project for U.S. states, i.e. List of Works Progress Administration projects in Oregon? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WAP?? I don't think so.[edit]

What is your source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Evans (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Works_Progress_Administration&oldid=1194478827"