Talk:Westbrook Pegler

Why was the MAD Magazine reference removed?
A parody of Pegler they published in the early 60's contained a made up quote which is sometimes attributed to him. Try Googling the following phrase, and see:

"It stinks. The whole thing stinks. You stink."

I think mentioning this is a valid part of cultural history. Besides, anyone wanting info on Pegler should get the facts and identifying a bogus quote is useful for that.

I don't want to start an edit war similar to the Palin thing, so could someone explain why the MAD reference was removed? 81.199.102.34 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, if there is no objection, I will add the MAD reference to the article. I want to see if I can find the exact magazine it apeared in first tho - also, I think I will wait until after the election, when things will have perhaps cooled down a little.

If there are any objections, the next few weeks are are the time to raise them. 80.69.8.190 (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Be very careful of MAD copyright infringement. Collect (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The same level of 'fair use' as on other pages should do. 81.139.133.68 (talk) 10:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Fair use" is a legal defense. WP seeks to avoid having to go to court. Collect (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also a guideline posted in many copy centers for the same reason. I think that is the idea behind this advice; quote to the extent that all the other quote users on Wikipedia do, and that should be acceptable. Since it apparently is. 88.97.182.230 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Libel vs Slander
Note: The entry for Westbrook Pegler cites his being sued for slander by Quentin Reynolds; the entry for Reynolds v. Pegler cites libel. Suit was for libel (print), not slander (verbal).
 * Someone seems to have changed that. --NealMcB (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reynolds' suit, as filed, did allege libel. However, such a suit filed today would not make the traditional print/verbal distinction and would instead be presented as a defamation case.  Current practice and jurisprudence doesn't really distinguish between the different methods used to disseminate potentially defamatory statements; the fact of their utterance and dissemination is generally considered sufficient cause to proceed.  72.0.15.8 (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Philip Roth on Pegler's alleged Anti-semitism
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palins_source.html

--John Bahrain (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is ridiculous to criticize Palin for this. The speech was written by Matthew Scully before Palin was picked as VP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.147.167 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

His assertion in November 1963 (at the height of the civil rights movement) that it is "clearly the bounden duty of all intelligent Americans to proclaim and practice bigotry"; his embrace of the label racist, "a common but false synonym for Nazi, used by the bigots of New York"; or his habit of calling Jews "geese," because they hiss when they talk, gulp down everything before them, and foul everything in their wake, augmented the philosophic shadow he will have cast in history.

What's with that last part, about the "philosophic shadow he will have cast in history"? That's awful writing. What does that even mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.38 (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I followed the link to Pegler’s 1936 essay “Suffer Little Children”. If he is an anti-Semite, he is unlike any other I have ever seen. Is there some way to look up the actual column with the “geese” remark? This needs more research. 207.177.225.141 (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A Neutral Interpretation of Pegler
Let's acknowledge that since (far right wing extremist) VP candidate Palin has used Pegler in a speech, the discussion of his meaning is a political burdened topic. Even allowing for that, the following is not a fair interpretation:

"Although Pegler was well-known as an anti-Fascist, in his latter career he was sometimes smeared as a "fascist" (or "pro-Nazi" or "antisemite," etc.)."

"Smeared"? Is it a smear against an antisemite (see his position on European Jews) if he is labeled an antisemite? Is it a smear against a person who admires German fascism (see article) to call him fascist or pro-Nazi? These are not smears. They are neutral descriptions. I don't know if he was "well-known" as an anti-fascist in his early career, but he was certainly well known later as a pro-Fascist antisemite. A neutral statement would be:

"Although Pegler was known to some as an "anti-Fascist" in his early career, in his latter career he was known to many as a "fascist" (or "pro-Nazi" or "antisemite," etc.)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.141.187 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Smeared" is the precise and accurate term.

Facts are: Pegler was an outspoken anti-Fascist. Look at his columns. There are at least two published compilations. The claims that he later made derogatory remarks about Jews are not substantiated. Do you actually have the column at hand? Do you have anything at all to cite, other than some scurrilous remarks you picked up from Slate and Frank Rich? If so, feel free to provide the reference. Otherwise, you are free to imagine whatever you like about Westbrook Pegler, American Catholics, anti-Communists, Republicans, Sarah Palin ("right wing extremist"? a bit extreme, I think--your judgment, that is); or Americans in general...but do not serve us up your wild allegations and tell us they are a "Neutral Interpretation." As Peg himself would put it--'Taint Right!Sallieparker (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

One substantial problem is the nature of the columns Pegler was hired to write. "Outrageousness" was one of the reasons his column was read, and so it behooved him to be outrageous. Others who wrote outrageous stuff, such as H. L. Mencken get much more of a free ride, although many of Mencken's columns were quite as outrageous. And some of the "quotes" from his columns are taken out of context, so that whether they are serious positions, or satirical positions, can be difficult to state with certainty. Usually those who have an axe to grind will make the interpretation most favorable to their own positions, which means that "truth" may be impossible to find. And equally difficult to make this a legitimate article, I fear. Collect (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of References
This entry is sorely lacking in footnotes and references for some of the more controversial things that Pegler has allegedly written and said. Are we simply to take the contributor's word for it that Pegler is responsible for everything that has been attributed to him? It also fails to acknowledge that Pegler often adopted a sarcastic tone in his writing, and at least on some occasions wrote his articles the voice of a crank in order to suggest mockery. All in all, I think this is a pretty shoddy job for an entry and nowhere near Wikipedia's standards. Jvward (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is awful. It's astounding that those quotes have been left in the article for so long without citations and without even a tag. This is wikipedia at its worst.69.204.67.42 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. You can easily gooogle those quotes.  It's not like you are only supposed to look in Wikipedia.  Do some work yourself - it's really, really simple, even for the dim-witted.  Take a quote, cut and paste it into Google.  Does it come up to mainstream sources?!  Yes!  You now have your source.  Instead of waiting for "Please, Wikipedia editors, prove they said these things!"  And as for Jvward, instead of taking the time to complain, take the time to Google and provide sources.  It's a pretty shoddy critique when you bitch, but don't improve.  --Peglertheracist (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when is an opinion piece on Slate a reliable source? What garbage. And someone with a username like yours shouldn't come anywhere near this article. Editors are supposed to strive for impartiality.69.204.67.42 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It stinks. The whole thing stinks. You stink. (g)76.2.153.214 (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the whole column in which Pegler is supposed to have made those remarks about Jews 'Hissing like geese', etc. It may well be taken out of context, or he may have gone (more) sour in his old age. The point is, we need a primary source. Anyone have the date and paper this column was supposed to have appeared? 84.69.150.82 (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is this, from Damon Runyon’s short story “Too Much Pep”:

“Anyway, I have a lot of very good friends among the Italians, and I never speak of them as wops, or guineas, or dagoes, or grease-balls, because I consider this most disrespectful, like calling Jewish people mockies, or Heebs, or geese. The way I look at it, if a guy is respectful to one and all, why, one and all will be respectful to him, and anyway, there are many Italians, and Jewish people too, who are apt to haul off and knock you bow-legged if you call them such names.”

Now Runyon always had his characters speak in the common argot of his time, so this is virtually certain to mean that ‘geese’ was a known ethnic slur. This should help identify what is going on, when the column is located. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:B806:330D:8491:3C44 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C3:E284:900:B806:330D:8491:3C44 (talk)

Redundancy
The reference to "Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the son of Senator Robert F. Kennedy," is redundant. Of course John Smith, JR. is John Smith's son. Altgeld (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin speech
It seems that this has been discussed above, but here goes again. This seems pretty scketchy and linked to a blog. Maybe if this recieves wide coverage and becomes something, maybe include in a year or two. Probably belongs in Palin speech article or the like it at all. --Tom 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added significantly more citations and readded it. Why do you say here and in your edit summary that it is linked to a blog?  It previously was supported by two citations, one of those was a Time Magazine article (i.e. not a blog.)  And yes, it does also belong in the Palin speech.  --John Bahrain (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have included some blogs as citations which I would rather not see, but I am not going to revert. Again, this seems pretty recent events type material that I don't really think belongs here but rather in a sub article on Palin if at all. Is there a citation that Pegler made the quote that is attributed to him in the speech? --Tom 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the quote was not attributed to him in the speech. There's little reason to think that the speech writer even knew who Pegler was, unless his leaving Pegler's name out was deliberate. -- Zsero (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it wasn't, but blogers are making the case that it belongs to him so here we are. --Tom 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

End of career
The biography states "He moved his syndicated column to the Hearst syndicate in 1944. Pegler's career ended 30 years later [...]", but also lists his death as 1969. His career clearly did not end in 1974 if he died in 1969. -130.64.135.40 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

removed overlinks etc.
Also added a temporary real reference, pending adding many real references. Fixed some grammar, Reworded minor stuff. This article needs a tone of work. Collect (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean a ton of work. Though it could also probably use tone. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cumulus added a NYTimes opinion column as a "source." WP practice is that such are not to be considered sources in biographical articles. Hence, I am removing it. If you demur, PLEASE use Talk FIRST. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cumulus re-added an opinion piece from the New York Times as a gospel truth reference. Leave it in, I suppose, though no word has been left here, abd he labelled it a "minor" edit. Collect (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am trying to verify some of the quotes ascribed to Pegler. In some cases I can show a quote does not appear to exist, which means there is a lot of clean-up still needed. Collect (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Found full name, dad's name, and his place of death. Collect (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

IP69 -- many of the "quotes" are unsourced. I cleaned up some, and would love to have you assist. Collect (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

no plagiarism
A paragraph lifted entirely from a Slate article has been excised. WP standards are opposed to plagiarism. Collect (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal Reference
This was added recently: —————————- * See Westbrook Pegler vs. Ed Sullivan, legal citation 6 Az App 338, 432 P. 2d 593 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1967) which dealt with a previous summary judgment ending Pegler's lawsuit against his nemesis Sullivan. This was reversed when Sullivan's New York show in Jan.1964 "caused an event to occur" in Tucson AZ which was an "invasion of Pegler's privacy".Sullivan was then required to respond in damages. —————————— This should be linked, if possible. If not, the summary should be written more clearly, or removed altogether. 77.69.34.203 (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Suffer Little Children
Link is doubtful. I have put a copy here, until a reliable source can be found.

Westbrook Pegler, Suffer Little Children (1936)

The most pathetic victims of Adolf Hitler's slow massacre of the Jews in Germany are the children of the Jews who are too young to know what it is all about. These children are subjected to a method of torture far worse than the baby killing which was charged against the German infantry in the early days of the Great War in cartoons depicting little bodies wriggling on the bayonets of the marching armies.

It finally was shown that the German soldier, Michael, as he was called at home, was the soul of kindness, who often shared his rations with the waifs behind the Belgian lines, and reasonable people on the Allies' side of the fight ultimately admitted that the charge was false.

But it will be impossible ever to disprove the atrocities which are being perpetrated on the children of the Jews under the orders of Adolf Hitler as a policy of the German government of today.

The Chinese have a method of torture known as the death of a thousand cuts, in which the executioner is rated according to his ability to hack and mutilate the victim without permitting him to die until the maximum of suffering has been inflicted. They have a very good photograph of an execution by this method in the Chamber of Horrors in Madam Tussaud's Museum in London, but most people coming upon it unsuspectingly turn away revolted, and only the most morbid visitor lingers for a second glance.

Hitler's torture of the Jewish children is even more ingenious, however, for he has invented a way to convert the period of childhood into a term of unrelieved sorrow, fear, dread and suffering. It is commonly accepted among the civilized peoples of the world that any man who would inflict suffering on a child, wantonly or for the purpose of avenging some offense, real or imaginary, attributed to the child's parents, or for any other reason, is not quite right mentally and ought to be put away.

We had a case of that kind in New York. An old man tortured and killed a little girl for the pleasure it gave him, and public opinion pretty well agreed that he was insane. But even in that case the suffering of the little girl was of short duration. Then she was dead. Hitler's little victims, however, are not allowed to die. They have no such luck. Hitler keeps them alive, and they suffer day after horrible day at the hands of a nation which constantly boasts of its honor and manhood, as a matter of national policy.

The German child who is a Jew is compelled to listen to the most unspeakable vilification of his parents, and the child's first attempts at spelling out public notices on the billboards will inform him that he is not a human being, like other children, but a beast whose parents were not human beings, either, but loathsome animals.

If the child lives in a country town where there are not sufficient Jewish children to warrant the establishment of a ghetto school in which to segregate little Jews, then the torture of the victim is even more artistic. In that case the child may be compelled to sit in the classroom and pay attention while the teacher explains that little Isadore or Rosie is a vile creature, a species of vermin and a menace to the German nation. If the teacher so desires, the Jewish child may be dismissed from the room during the lecture, in which case the Aryan children, with the characteristic cruelty of children plus the sadistic delight in the infliction of pain which is now being fostered in young Nazis, will catch the young Jew after class and tell Isadore or Rosie what the teacher said.

If the radio is turned on in the home of a Jewish family the children will hear an orator somewhere in Berlin or Munich explaining that their parents are beasts and that they are little beasts themselves.

A lone Jewish child in a small community must play alone, for the true Nazi children, of course, will not admit him to their company, and a Gentile child with pity in his heart would be afraid to offer the victim any sympathy. He would be ostracized.

And then, of course, it is fair sport for the Nazi children to kick and beat and throw rocks at the little Jews, because that is preliminary training for one of the highest functions of Nazi citizenship and manhood in days to come.

All children have a trusting attitude toward grown people, and a harsh word may leave an ineffaceable scar on the soul of the young one. The souls of the children of the Jews of Germany will be cross-hacked with a thousand cuts, for they will never know anything in childhood but insults to themselves and the foulest aspersions on the only adults to whom they can turn for comfort -- their parents and other relatives.

It is absolutely certain that their childhood, the few hours of innocence which are given to all of us and which civilized people try to invest with beauty and joy, has been destroyed by a man with a moustache, adopted from the makeup of a famous comedian, who has been seriously nominated by some of his followers not for king, not merely for ruler, but for God the Redeemer of the German race. It would be a mistake to call him a baby-killer. You can't torture a dead child.

2A00:23C3:E284:900:F459:422E:ECA9:A605 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Pegler Criticizes Racism in Baseball - Compares MLB to Hitler/Nazis
I've never heard of this man, nor was I aware of the culture war/battle involving him, but this article really sucks and needs to be re-written to reflect many of this talk page's concerns. To add to those concerns listed above; Wikipedia states he's a unambiguous racist, yet his writing (as quoted by the Washington Post) indicates that may not be the simple truth:

“Judge Landis, who tried the case and imposed the penalty, would thus placate the colored clientele of a business which trades under the name of the national game but has always treated the Negroes as Adolf Hitler treats the Jews,” - Westbrook Pegler wrote in 1938.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/09/13/jake-powell-racist-radio-interview-wgn/ 208.59.107.13 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)