Talk:Franklin Prophecy

Quote existed before Pelley
The quote is found before Pelley, in 1932. The Collected Works of Benjamin Franklin (NY: Macmillan and Company) 1932. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That is untrue. Moreover, your anonymously posted revisions to other articles, all of a pro-fascist nature, speak for themselves.

Adam Holland (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Linquistic Anachronisms
Could some of these be presented as evidence of forgery? 210.87.60.119 (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The way Wikipedia works, if you did it yourself it would be original research, see WP:OR. What you need is at least one reliable and verifiable source discussing this, see WP:RS and WP:Verify. dougweller (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some fool on a Yahoo News Message Board once quoted this crap, and I told him it was neo-Nazi propaganda. In response, another user mentioned that it contained the word "vampire" which he said wasn't used until Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897. DanTD (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Vampyre Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked further, and I found the word goes as far back as 1734. Unless there's something else I don't know about, we're going to have to do more research on any linguistic anachronisms. DanTD (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And its metaphorical usage (for Dutch merchants in England) goes back to 1741. Removing. While the text in the ADL does not read particularly like Franklin, I see nothing obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "Vampire" was rather obscure in English before 1797, and didn't start to achieve widespread cultural prominence until the publication of Polidori's novel in 1819, so it's in fact not a metaphor that one would expect to be used by a man who died in 1790, and had no ascertainable interest in central European folklore... AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
I'm not sure the statement about the article by Franklin being not genuine. There are no references to that statement. Followers of the Jewish faith may assume that the article is not genuine. That is the reason I am flagging this article as a NPOV-check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.249.237 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm anything but Jewish, but I realize these Franklin was never the anti-Semite that neo-Nazis wanted us to think he was. DanTD (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The proponents of this "prophecy" have had 74 years to come up with a clear attribution to a specific document among Franklin's voluminous writings, and they haven't ever managed to do so yet. Wikipedia is not required to be neutral between the "views" that the earth is round and the earth is flat... AnonMoos (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not neutral between the view that the earth is round and that it is flat? You will likely be hearing from the Flat Earth Society soon!John Paul Parks (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Six separate entries in the Further reading section dealing with precisely this point, and you think concluding it's a fake will depend on whether you're a Jew? Sorry, my kook alarm just went off.  Removing the bad-faith NPOV tag.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely you can see how the six sources could be seen as biased on this issue, the issue of whether this article is faithful or not. I understand they have journalistic credibility in general and on Wikipedia, but, I see it as in their best interest to deny this article as true. Imagine the danger of having someone like Benjamin Franklin utter these words. In my experience, it seems that more often than not that the truth is anti-Semitic. --Northroad (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The truth is anti-Semitic!?" What kind of nonsense is that? The truth is neither pro nor anti-Semitic. Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers wanted a country that was free from religious control of any kind, which was why they were anything but anti-Semitic. DanTD (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't AGF here. Northroad seems to be using this article to put forward an anti-Semitic viewpoint. I would have deleted it if you hadn't replied, as his is just a forum style post. Feel free to delete his, yours, and my edits. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference 6
I do not believe reference 6 is an appropriate source, on the page I found the quote, "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia." Thus making a self-reference.
 * Well spotted. Even worse, the quote from from a letter to Washington, not from it. I've replaced the quote with a correct quote with a new source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Pickney
When I was in university, my history teacher mentioned that Charles Cotesworth Pinckney had written a journal of the Constitutional Convention, but that it was disregarded after Madison's journal was published, because the latter was superior. He never mentioned the Franklin Prophecy. I am wondering whether the "superiority" derives from the fact that nothing as politically incorrect as the Franklin Prophecy could be allowed to remain in the published record of the convention.John Paul Parks (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible Explanation
I also recall reading that Franklin was old and senile and had to be kept under watch to make sure he did not blab about the proceedings of the Convention. The Franklin Prophecy may have been spoken when Franklin had a little too much to drink or might be one of the effects of the heat in the closed quarters of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.John Paul Parks (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * At one time I considered the possibility that he might've had a secret anti-Semitic streak that was exposed either due to being drunk, or senile, or both. But the fact that there was no real record of this until the Great Depression, and was only in Pelley's propaganda caused me to dismiss that notion entirely. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC
An 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 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright
I added the text because I had to look at Metapedia to find it. Reviewing editing history I found that it had been added & removed previously, due to copyright issues. Well, certainly I can fix that: I, Hans Mustermann wrote this in 1931 as a prank. Thus, I release the text in full to the public domain, licensable by the cc-by-sa, gfdl, adl, jidf, what have you. There you go, you are now free. If someone were to dispute my copyright, feel free to bring it to the attention of the Regionalgericht (regional court) in Berne, Switzerland. And have a wonderful day. 46.22.17.154 (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)