Talk:Norman Thomas

Untitled
NOTE: It had been suggested that this person be given a more precise geneology, including the names of parents and relatives.

Okay. I'm getting rid of my previous talk to myself about the Trotsky quote. It got filtered out of the article anyway. Now - the article's had some pretty serious changes, many of them obviously by latter-day disciples of Thomas. That gets us some information, but not compliance with WP's NPOV policy. So I'd ask - let's get some discussion going. 69.69.280.185 put up some good stuff, but badly in need of some reference. We need to think about how to re-organize the article, stop putting peoples' views on socialism in it, and flesh it out somewhat. Thomas was around into the '60s, and played a role in the civil rights movement as well, which we need to include. I'd propose breaking down the article into the following paragraphs:

1. Sketch that runs a little longer. High school, any other tidbits go here. 2. Background - university, minister, Christian socialism. 3. Entry into socialist movement. "Is Conscience a Crime?", WWI, 1920s work. 4. Involvement in Socialist Party. Perrennial candidate, etc. 5. Ideology. Thomas' anti-communism, move toward social democracy. 6. 1940s and later work outside of SP. 7. Involvement in civil rights movement.

I also want to be careful to avoid either panegyrics to Thomas' politics or outright bashing of them. There's a definite tendency in recent edits to be too glowing about the man, but I think this article can be solid. -Cadriel 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

An Extremely Interesting Quote
I stumbled acorss this quote Thomas made, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." That is quite interesting, because the Democrats and Socalist act like they hate each other, and yet the six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America made this commit about liberals, hmmmmmmmm. LordRevan 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems with that quote, espescially when it comes with it's inclusion in the article. It's always taken out of context. It's interpreted as though liberals have a secret socialist agenda, but when Norman Thomas said it, he had a very different meaning in mind. He was talking about the tendency of liberal candidates to steal from his and other socialist's platforms to sap away supporters of the Socialist Party towards the cause of the liberal factions in government.153.90.88.20 (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And upon reading the comment below, I realise this post was completely unnecessary.153.90.88.20 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Really
Lord Revan finds an interesting commit [sic], indeed. You might try to come up with a citation before you litter up these articles with your idiotic drivel and constant attempts to "swiftboat" FDR and the New Deal. I find you people tiresome and annoying. I wish you would get your own Wikipedia of Tinfoil Hattery and BS. That is why I deleted this questionable "commit" [sic]. I had some folks look into it but I knew it to be false the minute I saw it. Go to the Radical Reference Library on the web and it may be posted there soon. In the mean time, here are the texts of the e-mails I have received from them. You will note that it is likely paraphrasing, (distorting) something written by Upton Sinclair (a distant relative, and I don't much appreciate that, pal), in a letter TO Norman Thomas. If you can find a credible cite for this quote, other than books from Regnery or websites like Renew America, please... feel free to let us know.

"Sorry this is far from "immediate" as your urgency note requested. About 6 of us have had no luck yet finding this anywhere except in web sites and books that do NOT give a source for it. This is a great example of "you can't prove that someone DIDN'T say something"

We can build evidence for the possibility, or questionability, of this by looking at other people's efforts to find it - for example, books.google.com search: liberalism socialism "norman thomas" gets 84 hits, including Lou Cannon. Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power. PublicAffairs, 2003. ISBN: 1586480308. (F866.4.R43 C36 2003 in most academic libraries;  in 979.4... or BIO section of most public libraries). On page 125, Cannon says [of Reagan] ..."a favorite line was this supposed prediction of Norman Thomas...", and "This is a suspect quotation, and Reagan gave no reference for it". Cannon also says in a note "If Thomas said this, I have been unable to find evidence of it...."

Naturally, a thorough researcher would try to find many other such books, from people of various political bents, to build a case that such a quote is either probable, possible, or unlikely. One would think such a striking quote would make it into biographies of Thomas; try the tables of contents and indexes for "Liberalism", etc. Even statements from social and political historians (who claim to have looked for such a quote) can help build a case for or against it.

But it IS a good example of how even a false quote can take on a life of its own, because it shows how hard it is to prove a person did NOT say something - even if a "grand champion" history reference expert DOES end up finding this particular quote somewhere in unpublished Norman Thomas correspondence."

Jim Miller U of Maryland

"I wanted to elaborate on what we actually searched for the alleged Norman Thomas quote on liberalism vs socialism. We checked quotations in Bartletts (Bartleby.com), Lexis Academic, the text of news articles from New York Times and Washington Post Historical - searching: liberalism and socialism and "norman thomas"; a few biographies of Thomas, including: "Norman Thomas: The Last Idealist" by W.A. Swanberg (1976), and "Prophets of the Left" by R. Hyfler (1984).

Web searches turned up a related quote from Upton Sinclair (which ALSO should be double checked!) in Wikipedia - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair : "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them. Letter to Norman Thomas (25 September 1951)". See also at the bottom of http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jupton.htm"

Thanks,

Jim --- Jim Miller Senior Reference Librarian and College Park PTDL Representative Engineering & Physical Sciences Library University of Maryland College Park MD 20742-7011
 * In that case, then this dubiously cited quote needs to be removed permanently. If no primary citation can be found anywhere, than it does not belong on Wikipedia.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed a reference to this quote today. I've never seen a cite for it outside of quotation pages like the one that had been cited.   Cadriel (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Something is better than nothing
I think the quote deserves a front page entry since recent government action has helped it spread like a weed on blogs and via email and it is important to publicize these caveats. Ignoring it completely helps perpetuate the attribution of this quote to Thomas, as most people never make their way to these discussion pages. People will arrive or come to the article looking for the quote or some background and it should be mentioned that it is *apparently* erroneously credited to Thomas by Reagan. It's ok that it's origin be Sinclair, unknown or even totally fabricated by Reagan; it's more important that some intelligence around the quote be posted than none, especially now that Norman Thomas is probably known more for saying something he never said than anything he actually did say during his lifetime.

On another note -- If this quote paraphrases Upton Sinclair and is incorrectly attributed to Norman Thomas by Ronald Reagan, then does the quote not become a Ronald Reagan original?? If the first person to utter these words in this sequence is verifiable as Reagan, then the quote becomes his (regardless of whether or not the thought is lifted from Thomas nee Sinclair). Delfonic (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Progressive carried a real quote from Thomas about FDR. "Thomas said Roosevelt has not 'carried out most of the demands of the Socialist platform—unless he carried them out on a stretcher.'"   Interestingly, it's pretty much the opposite of what the conservative pseudoquote says.  I don't think there is any use in putting the fake quote on or referencing it.  Would there be a useful context for the genuine quote in the article? Cadriel (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad wiki link in original article
"The World Tomorrow" magazine that this guy founded was founded nearly 20 years before the radio program of the same name. Herbert Armstrong's magazine was calle The Plain Truth. Mr. Thomas had no relationship to Mr. Armstrong that I am aware of; this link should be have disambiguation added.

It had been suggested that this person be given a more precise geneology, including the names of parents and relatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.66.19 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Subjects' genealogy is a very low priority in Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Peronal vignette
I am afraid I removed the following personal vignette, as it does not fulfil Wikipedia editorial guidelines at all, as it has no external source. ===Vignette===

This edited into the entry by one who knew him. It is not official.

Norman Thomas was a family friend, I saw him every year in my youth at my godfather's Christmas Party in NYC. In 1953 I wasn't there and he asked my mother where I was. It was a formal time, she said Jonathan has matriculated at Princeton. He said "you know, Mrs. Murphy, I'm a Socialist - but I'm awfully glad I went to Princeton". At another time he said that he had never changed his views, and that many of the things he advocated were in Mr. Eisenhauer's platform. Finally, may I add, that I sang with the Princeton Tigertones for his Fiftieth Princeton Reunion in 1955. There were but a couple of dozen of them there, but all shed a tear as we sang the old college songs of their time. Our eyes got a bit damp also. At my Fiftieth we had nearly 300, and that reflects the change of life span that has come about since his graduation - and that is in part because of men like him who dedicated themselves to promoting justice.

Mr. Thomas was a gentleman of convictions, and consistency. This writer is a conservative who doesn't agree with all the views of Mr. Thomas - but who has the greatest respect for the man. He sought justice for all as a principle, he had no personal agenda for power. I often picture that gentle man in my thoughts, even though I'm in opposition to his politics. We shared a goal, but differed on the means to it - I wish he were here now so I could argue with him (gently), I was too young do do so when I knew him.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ACLU supported internment of Japanese Americans?
Does anyone have a source for that? ACLU's website indicates otherwise: "Fighting the Internment of Japanese Americans in 1942: The ACLU stood almost alone in denouncing the federal government's internment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII."

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FP_about_accomplishments

Fx6893 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the ACLU split over the issue of Japanese internment. The national organization decided to question the internment order, but not to challenge it directly. However, some of the local affiliates, most notably Northern California, did press on with court challenges to the policy. A good overview can be found here: http://encyclopedia.densho.org/American_Civil_Liberties_Union/ Mingusal (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the Encyclopedia citation is excellent. I read it as saying the national office strongly opposed efforts from West Coast chapters to challenge the govt. The ACLU did not "denounce" the federal government's internment--It is more accurate to say that it supported the policy by adopting a resolution that "acknowledged the government's right to establish military zones from which people may be removed 'when their presence may endanger national security.'" The national board tried hard stop one or two rogue chapters on the West Coast. The gov't policy was strongly supported in the ACLU by allies of FDR, and by the far left allies of the Soviet Union. Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I read it as saying that the board and national committee was split 2-1 with 2 thirds favoring a resolution that acknowledged the right of government to remove people from military zones, and one third favoring a resolution that strongly denounced the internation. It doesnt say anything about the policy being strongly supported by any "far left allies of the Soviet Union", and it also doesnt say that all or most supporters of FDR favored it, it says that some were reluctant to challenge him.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ACLS operated by majority rule and so it supported FDR and tried to veto or even shut down dissident chapters. FDR supporters voted yes [" liberals reluctant to challenge liberal icon FDR], as did supporters of USSR [" and leftists whose priority was to throw their full support behind the war effort"]. Rjensen (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as an unreasonable amount of interpretation, since it does not say that all liberal supporters of FDR were in the support camp, nor does it say that those who "wanted to throw their full support behind the war effort" were supports of USSR. I think especially that latter interpretation is questionable and relies on assuming a red scare type ideology that suggests that leftists are necessarily a soviet fifth column and could not act patriotically.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you need to read up on the Communists in WW2. see http://books.google.com/books?id=vzqXGAZ2hNoC&pg=PA49 Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That source still does not support your interpretation. It actually makes it seem unlikely that there was any communist faction in the ACLU at this point since the ACLU was even divided on whether communists rights should be protected or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ACLU had terrific fights over expelling its communists at the time. the chief communist on the ACLU Board was Elizabeth Gurley Flynn--she was purged by the board in 1940 in a a 10-9 vote (the issue was her membership in the Communist Party -- she was on the CP national board). See . Norman Thomas was absent for the vote. Walker I think is the source for the Encyclopedia article. see http://books.google.com/books?id=hdkrBVJ37I4C&pg=PA139 pp 139-43 which mentions support for Japanese internment in order to support he USSR. Rjensen (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then it seems even odder to suppose that there was a faction of pro-soviet communists in the board in 1942.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, the Walker source does justify this assumption with two named soviet sympathizers who voted for the conservative resolution, Corliss Lamont and William Spofford.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Norman Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061231160323/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk:80/JFKthomas.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKthomas.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Not Buckley's First Guest on Firing Line
Michael Harrington was Buckley's first Firing Line guest, April 4, 1966.

Not Thomas.

http://digitalcollections.hoover.org/advancedsearch/Objects/archiveType%3AItem%3BcollectionId%3A21/list104.4.200.75 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That ref says: "On this show (the first Firing Line taped, though not the first aired), Mr. Harrington begins by describing the despair and consequent lack of initiative engendered by poverty; ". What was the first to air? GangofOne (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Guest: Thomas, Norman, 1884-1968 Date Created: April 08, 1966 Mr. Thomas-the grand old man of the American Left, six-time Socialist Party candidate for President-was by this point focusing all his energies on opposition to America's involvement in the Vietnam War.

When did he run?
What presidential elections did he run in and why doesn't this article make it clear? 2600:1700:46B0:7200:BCE8:5527:46AA:F016 (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Second this, as our article 1948 United States presidential election says that Norman Thomas, candidate of the Socialist Party of America, debated Farrell Dobbs of the Socialist Workers Party. J S Ayer (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)