Template:Did you know nominations/The American Review (literary journal)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The American Review (literary journal)

 * ... that The American Review brought together several conservative political movements until the editor publicly expressed his support of fascism, antisemitism, and Adolf Hitler?
 * ALT1:... that the literary journal The American Review brought together several conservative political movements in the 1930s until the editor publicly disclosed its pro-fascist intentions?
 * ALT2:... that many of the contributors to the literary magazine The American Review condemned the publication after its owner/editor disclosed his antisemitic, pro-fascist ideology?
 * Comment: I'm a little uneasy reducing sensitive issues to a single "hooky" sentence, so would really appreciate some feedback/alternative hooks. After working on this article for a couple days I'm pretty confident about NPOV -- the sources tell a pretty cohesive and consistent story -- but less confident in my ability to balance "hookiness" with sensitivity. For context, a brief summary of the narrative: Multiple conservative political movements were brought together by editor/owner Seward Collins and his publication. Collins viewed them as having in common a "traditionalist" critique of society and politics. He solicited contributions from writers in order to produce a more or less singlular antimodernist voice. That voice, as Collins saw it, could take for granted some support of fascism, even though many of the contributors had already or would later condemn it. Pro-fascist writings were published, but consensus seemed to be that this was simply due to the diversity of positions which were being presented. When Collins admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a fascist, supported Hitler and Mussolini, and made antisemitic remarks in an interview -- and then, goaded by the interviewer, linked his beliefs to those of his contributors -- he made something of a pariah of himself and the magazine ceased production some months thereafter. In short, it's unclear to what extent each contributor agreed with Collins's own views, but certainly very few wanted to be linked to him after the controversy generated by that interview.
 * Comment: I'm a little uneasy reducing sensitive issues to a single "hooky" sentence, so would really appreciate some feedback/alternative hooks. After working on this article for a couple days I'm pretty confident about NPOV -- the sources tell a pretty cohesive and consistent story -- but less confident in my ability to balance "hookiness" with sensitivity. For context, a brief summary of the narrative: Multiple conservative political movements were brought together by editor/owner Seward Collins and his publication. Collins viewed them as having in common a "traditionalist" critique of society and politics. He solicited contributions from writers in order to produce a more or less singlular antimodernist voice. That voice, as Collins saw it, could take for granted some support of fascism, even though many of the contributors had already or would later condemn it. Pro-fascist writings were published, but consensus seemed to be that this was simply due to the diversity of positions which were being presented. When Collins admitted in no uncertain terms that he was a fascist, supported Hitler and Mussolini, and made antisemitic remarks in an interview -- and then, goaded by the interviewer, linked his beliefs to those of his contributors -- he made something of a pariah of himself and the magazine ceased production some months thereafter. In short, it's unclear to what extent each contributor agreed with Collins's own views, but certainly very few wanted to be linked to him after the controversy generated by that interview.

Created by Rhododendrites (talk). Self nominated at 21:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Note: Though I believe I'm exempted from the reviewing requirement since this is only my third DYK, I hope to do one anyway if I have time in the next couple days -- will update at that point. --&mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT3 ... that after The American Review owner expressed admiration for Hitler and Mussolini, a former contributor said he wouldn't write for it again "if it were the last publication left in America"? EEng (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The ALT3 hook fact has an inline citation that I was able to verify using snippet view. The article seems neutral to me and I was unable to detect any policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)