Talk:History of antisemitism in the United States/Archive 1

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

David S. Wyman

Xx236 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

IBM and the Holocaust

IBM was US.Xx236 17:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

SS St. Louis

SS St. Louis should be mentioned.Xx236 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Can you write a short paragraph about it. In fact, the whole quesiton of anti-Semitism and American attitudes towards the Holocaust deserves more extensive treatment than the single sentence that we currently have.
--Richard 16:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather not me, because of my language.Xx236 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: NPOV Tag

The lede section is disturbingly POV’d, which I assume continues throughout, but I stopped at the top. This is not to say anti-Semitism doesn’t exist in America; it did, does, and I have seen it (especially when that Semite happened to be Arab in the 1980s, what is it like now). The editors may be sarcastically complemented for providing such full documentation. Even I have contributed what seemed to be a missing link [1]. But, what you have created is too POV’d for public consumption. Had I known of the recent RfD, I would have brought up some simple facts concerning why this article is POV, and voted to correct and Keep. I didn’t and now just can’t let this slide by any further.

  • The NPOV tag is based, first, on the following quote from the 190? (whatever) Jewish Encyclopedia:[1]

While it may be stated that Anti-Semitism as such does not exist either in England or in the United States, still amid the general class distinctions maintained in social intercourse in those countries, a feeling against the Jews manifests itself in social discriminations.

Given that anti-Semitism is of European origin, both during and following the Crusades, as well as the “new” anti-Semitism[2] noted in 1911, and referring to instances occurring in the late 19th Century. What happened in Europe has very little similarity to what happened in the US; I believe a note of comparison is valid. This is not reflected in the least.
  • Secondly, the tag is based on the simple fact that the US has the second largest Jewish population in the world, tied with Israel. One must wonder why, if according this current Wikipedia article, anti-Semitism is so bad in the US. There seems to be something wrong with this article. The reasons why Diaspora Jews came to America likely contains the answers. Simply stated, America was their refuge and a country where anti-Semitism relatively didn’t exist (similarly with England). I can paraphrase a quote from Isaac Mayer Wise in the mid 1800s to the effect that ‘America is our promised land and Washington is our Zion’. I could note the American influence on Reform Judaism and vice-versa. The Polish and Russian Jews in the 1880s they came here, up until the 1920s, they came here from Europe after WWII, the Russian Jews came again following Jackson-Vanik. So, why did they continue to come? Welcome. Where is any indication of NPOV in the current article? It is absolutely missing.
  • I could add more, but I have wasted enough time.

You can add all the incidents you want, but until this all-too-obvious, fair, alternative POV is included, enough to show some glimmer of neutrality, I will maintain the NPOV tag. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To address your first point, the article does not say that antisemitism in the United States is the same as antisemitism in Europe. I have added a sentence explicitly states this.
Your second point reads like original research. Find a reliable source who makes this argument and then insert text describing what the reliable source says with a verifiable citation.
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a blog. If you have text which you wish to add that can be sourced to verifiable reliable sources, then please do so. Otherwise, what you have written amounts to a lot of "hand-waving" arguments.
--Richard (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing NPOV tag

Editor who inserted the tag has made no effort in the past week to clarify and address the issues raised beyond making vague, hand-waving original research arguments. I have made some effort to address the issues to the extent possible given the non-specific nature of the issues raised. Therefore, I am removing the NPOV tag. --Richard (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Jjdon from another page...

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1603&letter=A Other Countries
  2. ^ http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Anti-Semitism

How about some evidence?

Not one sentence about what David Duke or Pat Buchanan actually said or wrote that is allegedly anti-Semitic 68.183.223.176 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly wrong. Duke is not mentioned at all in the article and Buchanan is specifically quoted twice. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you could definitely dig up some comments on David Duke, but as for Buchanan, saying that a political commentator "habitually spices his remarks with antisemitic allusions and sarcastic comments on Jews" or is a Holocaust denier without providing any examples or citations is certainly over-the-top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.91.7 (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are being dishonest. The quote you give is not in the article and the article does not say that Buchanan is a holocaust denier. Similarly, the statements made about Buchanan in the article are clearly cited. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"Antisemitism in the United States" and "History of Antisemitism in the United States" both share this talk page. Honest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.91.7 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. This is fixed now. --Richard (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:KKK holocaust a zionist hoax.jpg

The image Image:KKK holocaust a zionist hoax.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rationale provided. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Antisemitism in the United States and History of antisemitism in the United States

I know, both articles are quite large, so the merge suggestion may look surprizing.

My suggestion is to merge them and then split according to chronology, with a brief introductional top-level article. Otherwise the current division in two is rather confusing. From what I guess, the page Antisemitism in the United States is "intro" + "antisemitism since late 20th century", or something like this. `'Míkka>t 02:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As the creator and a major contributor to History of antisemitism in the United States, I oppose the merge because the result would be unwieldy. Antisemitism in the United States is intended to describe the current state of antisemitism in the United States and covers roughly the last decade or so. History of antisemitism in the United States covers the entire 200+ year history of the U.S. and provides the historical context to understand Antisemitism in the United States. Many of the antisemitic attitudes have attenuated in the latter half of the 20th century but the vestiges of those attitudes are perpetuated today in a small but virulent antisemitic minority of fanatics. The attitudes also exist in a larger proportion of the population who are not as openly antisemitic but still harbor the attitudes nonetheless. --Richard (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my suggestion closely, you will see that I understand your point. My reason is that wikipedia is supposed to be a timeless encyclopedia :-). And in a decade or so the "last decade or so" will be something different. My suggestion is to indicate explicitly the time frame for each piece of info, leaving Antisemitism in the United States as an overview of the subject, with summary sections and main articles for each reasonable time period. per wikipedia:Summary style. `'Míkka>t 20:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Mikka, your criticism applies to any article describing characteristics or phenomena of a society. Over time, those characteristics and phenomena will change and articles about them will need to be updated. Similarly, over time current events become history and will need to be added to the "History of ... articles". There are many "History of..." articles in Wikipedia. I would urge you to focus less on merging these two articles and to consider instead making suggestions for regularizing them. For example, if you think that a brief summary of the History of antisemitism in the United States article should be included in the Antisemitism in the United States article, I can support that. I also suspect that the "Current status" section of the History of antisemitism in the United States article could be improved.
The two articles link to each other so I think a reader of either article can always read the other article if he finds the article he is reading does not have the scope that he needs.
--Richard (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Leo Frank section

I changed it from falsely accused to tried for. --Tom 18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The rewrite looks better, thanks, --Tom 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"less prevalent" ?

The whole introduction seems to preserve NPOV and rely on historical works that are quoted in the body of the text, with the exception of this one sentence : "Antisemitism has always been less prevalent in the United States than in Europe."

First problem: is there really a consensus among historians on the way to measure the "prevalence" of antisemitism in a given society, beyond the obvious (Nazi Germany: more prevalent than current Germany) ? I am not aware of any, but I am only an amateur historian.

Second problem: simply stating that the American society has been antisemitic in the past is an extremely taboo thing to do in the current American culture. The use of "always" in that sentence is to me a clear indication that the sentence exists in this context of taboo more as cultural assertion than as a historical one...

I certainly don't feel involved enough in WP to erase the sentence by myself, but it seems to me that it deserves at least a "citation needed" tag... What do you think ? -- Robert 9 february 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.239.130.153 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Marx

I accidentally hit enter while writing my edit (credited to 76.191.211.149) summary. The full thing was to go like this:

Whether or not Marx was antisemitic, the statement that he claimed that "Jews were responsible for capitalism" is simply false.

You can make a case that Marx's On the Jewish Question was antisemitic. You'd be wrong, but you can make that case. But he certainly never said that capitalism came to exist because of Jews. --MQDuck (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement on Father Charles Coughlin cannot be verified on the basis of the citation

It is necessary for me to challenge one of the statements in the sub-article on Father Charles Coughlin. On the basis of the citation which is given, I have been unable to verify that Father Coughlin actually made the statement which has been attributed to him.

The article states, "At a rally in the Bronx in 1938, he gave a Nazi salute and said, "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing." The endnote cites a book by William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream (1973), page 176. Manchester mentions this alleged incident in passing. However, the source he cites attributes this quotation to someone else, and not to Father Coughlin.

Manchester cites the book by John Spivak, The Shrine of the Silver Dollar (1940). The book can be read at archives.org. Spivak writes on page 137 (the page cited by Manchester), "Van Nosdall, who headed the Save America Crew, was closely tied up with Nazi agents and was once publicly acclaimed as "the greatest living American" by Fritz Kuhn, head of the Nazi Bund in this country. Besides being a crusader, Van Nosdall was also a bit sanguinary. At one of the Coughlin defense meetings, held at Triboro Palace in the Bronx, New York, he gave the Nazi salute to the applauding crowd and shouted: "When we get through with the Jews in America they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing. . . ."

Spivak therefore attributes this terrible quote to George A. Van Nosdall, the leader of the group "Crusaders for Americanism." Either Manchester mistakenly atributed the quote to Father Coughlin, or Father Coughlin did make the exact same quote at a different rally in the Bronx, and Manchester cited the wrong source. The second possibility would seem unlikely.

The Wikipedia policy of verifiability did not strictly obligate me to take the second possibility seriously. However, there are articles on a number of other websites that attribute this quote to Father Coughlin (without providing any sources), and at least some of the articles appeared to be mostly reliable. So I made every reasonable effort to try to locate a source other than Manchester's book which attributes this quote to Father Coughlin. My search has been unsuccessful. If anyone can locate a source which attributes that quote to Father Coughlin, please do so and add the citation. We will be very indebted to that person.

I did not want to make any changes to the article without discussing them here. I do not want there to be any misunderstandings. I should mention that one could very easily use the biography of Father Coughlin by Dr. Sheldon Marcus, (especially his chapter on Social Justice magazine) to expand this section. His biography is very well documented, and appears to be accurate and reliable. I simply want to be sure that, at least in Wikipedia, the information on the internet about Father Coughlin is accurate.

I am unsure of when to delete, and when to place a tag in the article. At the very least, the citation of Manchester's book should be deleted, and a "citation needed" tag with a date should be put in its place. The other alternative is to delete the statement until someone can verify it.

Update, over a week later: I have decided that it would be best to remove the unverified statement from the article. I believe it is probable that Father Coughlin never made that statement, and the common belief that he did make it has its origin in the book by William Manchester, where Manchester mistakenly attributes the quote of Van Nosdall to Father Coughlin. If I am wrong, and someone locates a published reliable source which attributes the quote to Father Coughlin, the statement can easily be restored to the article.JDefauw (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Not sure how to fix but clearly things like 1900 being "one year before the Bill of Rights" and a heading "South America" of section that seems to have nothing to do with that continent indicate that deliberate vandalism has occurred.

Perhaps a single revert might work but also valid edits might have been made without the editor noticing the vandalism.

I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to correct the problems but will try if no edits occur soon.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that many deliberate mistakes were introduced in the Sept. 19 2013 edit. Unfortunately an edit was made subsequent to this. I will try fixing a couple of errors.--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:3D Test of Antisemitism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Henry Ford signed a statement apologizing for the articles

According to Pool and Pool (1978) he didn't.Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of antisemitism in the United States. 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) 09:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of antisemitism in the United States. 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) 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost No Sourcing Here

Many sections, around half, have no sourcing whatsoever. I contend that most of what is said here and not sourced, is either false, or could not be sourced from reliable sources. But this doesn't even matter. It's a rule violation. I'd go ahead and delete these, but I'm guessing the owner of this wiki will quickly undo all my deletions without reason (standard practice on wiki, right?). So please voice your concerns here, and we'll have some documentation to back-up whatever changes are made.

Secondly, there are quite a few paragraphs dedicated to the discussion of the creation of pro-Jewish lobbies and organizations. Perhaps there should be a wiki on the history of Ethnocentric Jewish activism in USA (maybe there is?) and this information should be moved there. Or is there a reason it's here? That can be sourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.165.8 (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes... agreed one of the worst - as in un-sourced - articles I have ever read anywhere. I will start adding and correcting and sourcing where I can. This article really should have been deleted or at least flagged for all its un-sourced statements.

This paragraph in particular caught my eye for utter lack of sourcing:

There were only about 12 Jews living in North America in the 17th century. These faced a number of restrictions, including being banned from practicing law, medicine, art, and other professions. As late as 1790, one year before adoption of the Bill of Rights, several states had religious tests for holding public office, and Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina still maintained established churches. Within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, Delaware, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Georgia eliminated barriers that prevented Jews from voting, but these barriers did not fall for many decades in Rhode Island (1842), North Carolina (1868), and New Hampshire (1877). Despite these restrictions, which were often enforced unevenly, there were really too few Jews in 17th- and 18th-century America for antisemitism to become a significant social or political phenomenon at the time (although antisemitism as a phenomenon does not depend on the presence of Jews). And the evolution from toleration to full civil and political equality for Jews that followed the American Revolution helped ensure that antisemitism would never become official government policy, as it had in Europe.

By 1840, Jews constituted a tiny, but nonetheless stable, middle-class minority of about 15,000 out of the 17 million Americans counted by the U.S. Census. Jews intermarried rather freely with non-Jews, continuing a trend that had begun at least a century earlier. However, as immigration increased the Jewish population to 50,000 by 1848, negative stereotypes of Jews in newspapers, literature, drama, art, and popular culture grew more commonplace and physical attacks became more frequent.''

How do so many seemingly material and ostensibly specific numerical statements of fact get into this article without a single citation? This should be corrected or the section drastically reduced ASAP and until such sourcing is made known.

72.182.60.210 (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

'Antisemitism has always been less prevalent in the United States than it has been in Europe'

Antisemitism has always been less prevalent in the United States than it has been in Europe.

This unreferenced claim has lingered here citationless for more than a decade. Since there's no source for it anywhere in the article, I'm removing it. If anyone can find a source, feel free to undo my deletion and add it. Coldspur (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 01:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1180206944"