Talk:Benjamin H. Freedman/Archive 2

One can not claim, as has been edited into the section "" and then delete evidence when it is provided? It is completely relevant because if such media control exists now the point is validated. Which is what the speech is about the speech is about the future as much as it is about the past.

if the "he provides no evidence for his claim" goes then we will not need evidence shown.. -Theblackbay 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Familiarize yourself with WP:NOR; when you added Benjamin Freedman claimed to have documents with him at the time of the speech to back everything he said up However we are yet to see these documents but history it seems has been the best evidence for B H Freedmans claims as it is shown below to be a fact, you were making your own conclusions, arguing on Freedman's behalf. We don't get to do that here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I am everyday becoming more familiar, essentially your right , so then i could claim that to opposing side is doing this also with "At the time of which he was speaking, "media" meant essentially newspapers, pamphlets, and newsreels and Joseph Pulitzer and Adolph Ochs were remarkable for the fact of their Jewish descent among newspaper owners, the great majority of their colleagues being gentiles"

no? -Theblackbay 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. That's also argumentation. I'm not sure about that whole section, though. It's entitled, "Claims of Jewish control of newspapers"; what relevance does the "traffic light quote" have to those claims? Germany's Jews were doing quite well in the period he is citing (pre-WWI); they were full and active members of German society. Meanwhile, it doesn't seem reasonable to use the word "evidence" in conjunction with his "long story" quote -- that's not evidence, that's an assertion of evidence without actually presenting evidence. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "long story" quotation is not merely a refusal to presemt evidence rather than a presemtation of evidence but also irrelevant to the Jewish control of newspapers. It's Freedman's claim to have evidence--which he did not present--for his claim that unnamed Zionists approached the British government and offered to inveigle the US into the war in exchange for Palestine. I've reverted the passage to correspond with the facts on the ground. Samhook 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been re-worded to explain the meaning of the quote it was moved by someone to the World wars, section. the quote demonstrates the argument/claim that most or all mass media was controlled at the time by Zionists / ”Jewish” interests.-Theblackbay 08:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also that Encarta quote. Please Samhook when you insert "he provides no evidence for this claim" don't place it directly in front of the next line which asserts the evidence.

here is the B H Freedman Quote for you just to ponder a minute:

"After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war."

Sorry, but a Freedman claim is not evidence of anything. When he can be checked against the record, he is almost always purveying falsehood.

And here is the Encarta Quote for you to ponder also:

"The immediate purpose was to win for the Allied cause in World War I the support of Jews and others in the warring nations and in neutral countries such as the United States." ('Balfour Declaration," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopaedia 2000).

If as you assert B H Freedman was a "lying charlatan" is then also Encarta Encyclopaedia a lying charlatan Encyclopaedia?\

This snippet from Encarta deals with British motivations for issuing the Balfour Declaration. No one has ever disputed that Zionists urged the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and that the British were thoorughly aware that acceding to this desire would influence public opinion in various neutal countries in favor of the Allies. This is what the Encarta snippet says. It says nothing whatever about Freedman's claim that certain unnamed Zionists promised the British that they would inveigle the US into the war. This claim still stands with no other support than the word of a man proven a disseminator of falsehood after falsehood on the plain record. The same is true for his claims that Woodrow Wilson was blackmailed into declaring war.

Hello Samhook you seem to be talking in yourself into the obvious denial of the plain facts as they seem to be here, the English Issued the Balfour Declaration it's a fact, maybe you can show us all of this other motive this urge that the British all of a sudden had to declare support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as I’m sure you know the Balfour Dec was issued NoV 2 1917 , and the Americans Joined the War earlier that year in what April 6? 7 months after the fact of US entry, the British issue the Receipt B H Freedman claims.

If this assertion is untrue as you say it is perhaps you can tell me, us, the world, why the British would do this after the US has entered the war, if they did not agree to it earlier? as Franklin Roosevelt once said:

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945)

So you are arguing that the Balfour declaration was a spontaneous cognitive gesture of philanthropic charity by Arthur James Balfour and the British empire? if not then why did they issue it after the US had entered?. -Theblackbay 10:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Balfour Declaration was issued in November 1917 in a bid to keep Russia in the war, not to bring America in. Britain hoped that Russian Jews would be able to keep Russia in the war if a promise over Palestine was issued. This became redundant when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Provisional Government, as Lenin was determined to get out of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.124.169 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that I called Freedman "a lying charlatan." Please post a verifiable location where other readers here can see my statement. Please remember also that your edits to your own talk page are tracked for all to see, so it won't do simply to revert me back. Helpful hint: if you censor a critic in one place on Wikipedia, don't quote him in another. Transparency, thy name is Wiki.

Samhook 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may also be relevant to your next heading Samhook because if you did not write on my user discussion page I need to tell you I did not make those changes to the Media control section. That you claim are incorrect.

Please tell me if you said this?: under the sub heading "Samhook Response"

"you seem to have adopted one of the three mottoes of the Party in 1984: "Igorance is strength." As I see it, this lack of yours makes you a ready victim to lying charlatans like Benjamin H. Freedman. You do not understand that his claims are contradicted by millions of documents in thousands of libraries. I would be glad to hear your view on this matter before proceeding further. Samhook 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)"

here: User talk:Theblackbay

Of course I said it. And you removed it from your talk page without responding to it. Your perfect right, of course. But it is bad form--to use no stronger term--for you to quote me here having suppressed the remark on your own talk page. Samhook 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand again, I DID NOT re_move it i Moved it to "Response by Samhook" so as not to disrupt my explaining FRB and Central Banks.-202.7.166.171 17:59, 8 September 2006 -Theblackbay 04:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your explanations for the "Balfour Declaration"? in fact i predicted this long ago, When all one thought one knew about one thing was incorrect, one doesn’t like to hear it in fact I’ve seen the anger maybe a million times. First is generally anger then dismissal then some of us would rather delete the history so that we feel better knowing that "Millions of libraries" agree with us when we delete it, so that "we" can know that "we" haven't been lied to our whole life, so that "we" know that the foundations we have had built for us, that we have all our idea's based on are really very sound ... aren’t they?

Because if we start to take on ONE alternative view that is obviously backed up by evidence(as we have and will have seen), we might have to change our minds on other things (such is the domino our "education" structure... as we have seen here.) We might have to re-assess all of our foundations, an understandable large discomfort to a person officially de-educated by post WW2 propaganda recently after that war relatively speaking.

This Samhook is where your "lying charlatans like Benjamin H. Freedman." comment really comes from, if you have no other animosity towards this man... it is not B H Freedman you dislike, it's what he represents. the drastic re-assessment of your own foundations the, inevitable future of free information exchange that this Techological third eye has brought with it.

And with that the destruction of our/your own history. -Theblackbay 04:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

There seem to be a few minor problems with the most recent "improvement" in Jewish Control of the Newspapers section:

Critics claim that he offered no evidence for these statements, However, the Associated Press was founded in 1846 by Moses Yale Beach, Joseph Pulitzer and Adolph Ochs. These three were remarkable for the fact of their Jewish descent among newspaper owners in the U.S.A where the great majority of their colleagues were gentiles.[citation needed]

a) Joseph Pulitzer was born in 1847. It is hard to see how he could have helped found the Associated Press in 1846.

b) Adolph S. Ochs was born in 1858, which would seem an even greater problem, although at least Ochs, unlike Pulitzer, was living in the United States when he was born.

c) Moses Yale Beach was of age to have taken part in the Associated Press and indeed was its principal organizer. On the other hand, there is no evidence that he was a Jew. People of pathetically limited education sometimes assume that anyone named Moses must be a Jew, but the fact is that names from the Hebrew Bible have always been popular amomg Christians. Cf. Samuel Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Aaron Burr, &c., &c. Beach's middle name of Yale suggests a connection with the founder of Yale University, a Congregationalist cleric. and there is nothing peculiarly Jewish about his surname. I have been compelled to revert this amusing passage back to something with a better grip on reality. Samhook 18:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samhook the original text noted Adolph S. Ochs, Joseph Pulitzer as notable Jewish newspaper owners then changes were made to it after I added Moses Yale Beach for whom a reference of religion at this time seems to be of an unknown quantity, something for the researcher in all of us.

You seem to have the relation between research and publication turned around. As you now admit, you have no information as to the religion or ethnicity of Moses Yale Beach. Yet you claimed in your edit that he was Jewish, and now suggest that the rest of us ought to join in a project to see whather you were right. I have no definitive information on the subject. For what it may be worth, the name is sound Connecticut Yankee, and it is unlikely there was much of a Jewish community in Wallingford in 1800, where and when Beach was born. But I'm not claiming that Beach was a Congregationalist, and would not do so without having verifiable evidence to back me up. You, on the other hand, have claimed that he was a Jew. Where is your evidence? Samhook 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Yale Beach was the primary founder of Associated Press look it up on wikipedia.

-Theblackbay 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Samhook you are correct if you are asserting we need to do some more study into this, and you have inspired me to do so, I’m going to try to find out just how many Newspapers were owned by people of Jewish decent at that time in the USA, for you, so we can be clear on it.-Theblackbay 10:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Moses Yale Beach's ancestry: He was the son of Moses Sperry Beach, son of Moses Beach, son of Moses Beach, son of Thomas Beach, son of John Beach, born Devonshire, died Stratford, Connecticut in 1677. Yes, lots of Biblical names -- because if Great-great-great-grandfather died in 1677 in Stratford, he was a Puritan. Perhaps we might venture the Puritanical domination of the press? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JPgordon I’ll keep researching also , yes I’ll sign up to your venture, of course, it would be more interesting if we had some evidence of massive corruption attributed to them you know like the good Lord Balfour's and maybe a World war in there as well, maybe two.. just more world changing, you know. -Theblackbay 16:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam you seem to think that it's OK to remove Freedman's reasoning because it isn't "true". That is not relevant. How he reasoned is how he reasoned. If it's ridiculous then so be it. But this page is about him. So his quotes and his line of thought is relevant to the page. Wjhonson 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not my position ar all. Consider the sequence of edits here. I noted that Freedman offered no evidence for his assertion that Zionists offered to embroil the US in WWI in exchange for Palestine. Another editor said that he did offer evidence, and then inserted not evidence but the assertion itself. Primarily in the interests of coherence, I reverted this substitution of asseretion for evidence. This is, it seems to me, already an inchoherent article, one badly in need of total recasing without regard to its substance. I may take a sabbatical from day-to-day editing and try to produce that recasting so that the detail editing can proceed more effectively. Samhook 15:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if Freedman said it, then the fact that he said it, is relevant to his article, regardless of any evidence whatsoever. It may be evidence that he is a nut-case or not, but if he is quoted, than that is relevant. Wjhonson 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wjhonson. His reasonings includes his evidence, whether cited or not. The reasonings can be followed by a reminder that there is no direct evidence to back them up, but that does not entitle to them not being shown. Anything that Benjamin Freedman said in his publications, are relative to backing up his theories and also his article. --Sina 04:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm reading wrong, or someone's practicing original research here. This section is particularly problematic, which is why several of us have been removing it:

He provides evidence for this claim in the form of the Balfour Declaration:

Balfour Declaration of 1917, a letter to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a then-leader of the British Jewish community.

"When the British originally created the Balfour Declaration they were just looking for support in the World War I, but also had some long term affects in mind." [1]

"The immediate purpose was to win for the Allied cause in World War I the support of Jews and others in the warring nations and in neutral countries such as the United States." ('Balfour Declaration," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000)

Promoters of Freedman's claims, such as Curtis Bean Dall (son-in-law of Franklin D. Roosevelt) claim Freedman was well-enough placed to have an informed opinion on such matters as the First and Second World Wars, and on the financial collapse of Germany, to give him credit in various books written on such subject(s).

The citation is pretty much worthless; reliable sources do not include primary school websites. (Or maybe it's a high school, not sure.) No mention of Freedman is made in that source, anyway; nor is it made in Encarta. Thus, this is argumentation attempting to support Freedman's position, or to explain it without reference to Freedman. This doesn't work at all, and is OR (and bad OR, to boot). What did Freedman say about the Balfour Declaration? What exactly was his "evidence"?

We'll need citations for Dall's claims, but they have no bearing on the "evidence" either.

Critics claim that he offered no evidence for these statements, However, the Associated Press was founded in 1846 by Moses Yale Beach publisher of the New York Sun, also Joseph Pulitzer and Adolph Ochs were notable for the fact of their Jewish descent among newspaper owners in the U.S.A but it is said that the great majority of their colleagues were gentiles.^{[citation needed]}

Pure argumentation. This paragraph shouldn't be here at all. We're not supposed to argue positions -- if we present argument, it has to be argument specifically made about the subject in question.

Reverted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did more than that. The entire paragraph did not come from one source and yet you removed it based on one questionable source. Part of this paragraph come's from Dalls' book and he was cited, and part of it come's from Freedman's speech as well. Wjhonson 16:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think "jahtruth.net" is within a million miles of being a reliable source? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that transcriptions of an audio tape are more useful than simply pointing to the tape. Wjhonson 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transcriptions from an unreliable source are unreliable. Fruit of the tainted tree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the audio tape of the speech is unreliable is a personal opinion? That would put us at an impasse it seems. Wjhonson 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? How did you read "the audio tape of the speech is unreliable" from what I said? The transcription from the obvious unreliable source jahtruth.net is also unreliable. I've made no comment about the audio tape itself. You really have to understand that we're not in disagreement with the substance of the article; but Wikipedia's rules on verifiability and reliable sources are very strict, as they must be. As some of us have been saying all along, the big problem for this article is that the bulk of information about Freedman comes from sources that we cannot use in any way (unless they lead us to better, more reliable sources.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon also as technically specific as your answers are, for the reasons you give to delete the relevant data, if it be that as you claim "Transcriptions from an unreliable source are unreliable. Fruit of the tainted tree" can be taken to a very fine point, don't fear I’m not complaining I’ve put a lot of research into this, information always finds a way, I’m then ready for the time where we have to go back the other way When B H Freedman (and the relevant facts) are transferred as common knowledge, common fact knowledge in the future through Schools home and official, so we may have to take out any exaggerations, it's the human information exchange as equal as water level in this world.

watch how it flows.... The verifiable Balfour declaration information will flow to the Balfour Declaration Article, as will the Newspaper(s) information to those relevant article(s) , it can never be covered.

The B H Freedman quote(s) will flow to him or.... the B H Freedman article will ultimately be chipped away in such a sharpening of the "Reference Pencil" to a point where “nothing” is verifiable and ultimately the article is deleted. Some people would feel much more comfortable, I myself would laugh...... let me lay it out for you...

Take a step back, Believe it or not people like me are trying to Save Wikipedia you see as this universal information Exchange flows, no one individual small square (wikipedia) in that vast Matrix of universally Verifiable Core information can delete what is becoming generally accepted verifiable information it will simply flow Past, Over, Under and Around, that small square.

And then informed humans will get to the point where the information from that "small square" will be understood to have a distinct “in-balance” and will be known and used less and less as a “balanced” verifiable point of information exchange.

as I’m sure you could see already? I could go on, We could talk about the self fulfilling prophecy that could exist in such a “free” “controlled” wikipedia the one by which we generally only have people with a single general taboo point of view contribute, the eventual effects… so on so on….

I’d believe this sort of control would be possible about 20 years ago. A controlled successful wikipedia is about 20 years to late. -Theblackbay 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes i know the answer a reference wikipedia is what we want etc etc , I’m talking about the defining of reference down to a point so fine that the only accepted reference is the one that all human conscience together had to be there at the time of the subject in question so humanity in totally all at once witnessed it and could verify to it existence on the bible or to our grave.

You know.....the one’s that are only applied to the subject(s) that will save or wreck wikipedia. when they all go so does wikipedia's reference, honestly tell me you understand, and that I’m wrong. -Theblackbay 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I really have no idea what you're talking about, but it doesn't particularly matter unless it has to do with improving this article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(And other questions of verifiability)

Aside from Wikipedia, Freedman’s web existence is almost entirely limited to various quasi-Nazi sites where he is offered forth as “defector” who spilled the beans on his fellow Elders of Zion who embroiled the US in WWI. Yet surprisingly, in none of the various texts attributed to him does he speak of himself as a Jew. The contention that he was appears to be owing purely to Kevin Alfred Strom, his original web promoter, on the sites successively of the National Alliance and National Vanguard. New kid on the block though I may be, I will venture the judgment that these sites do not meet the non-partisan test. These sites are also the source for the idea that Freedman became a Catholic convert. Although his writings contain material consistent with this idea—he claimed to have been a long-time intimate of Francis Cardinal Spellman and gave effusive praise to an undoubted Jewish convert to Catholicism—he nowhere calls himself a Catholic. Highly partisan sites remain the only source advanced here.

The article as it stands contains some material from non-partisan sources, but it mostly deals with the question of whether Freedman actually existed. We are in debt to wjohnson for setting this question to rest.

But in general, even for the texts of what Freedman is supposed to have said, the article relies on highly partisan sources, and an editor bent on applying the verifiability requirement would not leave enough to show why Freedman is notable, as indeed he is. Samhook 15:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts. He is called a Jew by Sworkin, and by the Rosenburg trials as well. The ADL calls him a Jew during the trial period. He is called a Christian, in the preamble to his speech, where also his wife is named as Rose and that she is already dead. It's all cited. Wjhonson 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That he is "called a Christian" does not support that he "became a Catholic convert". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was a Catholic. I'm only pointing out that that original claim that none of this is supported is evidently false. Wjhonson 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are these deliberate non-sequiturs? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could address a question I can answer, than I will. Wjhonson 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Morris Kominsky, THE HOAXERS, says about Freedman's bio. Kominsky's identified source is Forster & Epstein, THE TROUBLE MAKERS, put out by the Anti-Defamation League.

"Freedman was born in New York City on October 5, 1890 of Jewish parents who came to the U.S.A. from Hungary. His father was a successful manufacturer of clothing... Freedman had retired from business in 1944..."

I haven't looked up the Forster & Epstein item myself, but if people wish for a different reference source than Kevin Strom then that might be a natural place to go looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.34 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, my point hasn't gotten across, and someone is continuing to add material sourced at jahtruth.net. That website is not in any way a reliable source (except as an example of loony nuthatchery); if the desired material is not available from any other source, it cannot be used. Period. Am I missing some subtlety here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you are comming through quite clear, no problem Jpgordon fixed I it up -Theblackbay 07:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ziopedia is somewhat better than JAHtruth, but that's not hard. But Ziooedia has articles denying a distinction between Judaism and Zionism and denying the Holocaust. Surely you don't think this is a non-partisan source, Samhook 00:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good gosh. Does someone really think 100777.com is any more reliable a source? Another batshit loony site. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no prohibition on citing sites that have an opinion. If you question whether they are reliably transcribing his speech, then listen to the speech. Wjhonson 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. All of our cited material must come from reliable sources. Period. That's one of most absolute rules. Again, fruit of the tainted tree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • New kid here, and all that, but this seems a sensible interpretation. An enyclopedia whose readers must verify transcriptions is itself not very reliable. Once one had--as an editor here--veified the transcription, what of NOR? Samhook 16:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a misreading. What I said is there is no prohibition against citing sources which "have an opinion". You seem to think "reliable" is the same as "neutral" and it's not. Wjhonson 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also I would add, that in the case of a transcription, the question asked should be "is the transcription accurate", not "is the person transcribing a fruit loop." If they have done the transcription reliably, then its reliable. Wjhonson 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unreliable sites are unreliable, period. Has nothing to do with their having opinions. Things on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. As it says on WP:V, 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. There is no way that 100777 is reputable. Thus, the reader is left without a reliable source from which to verify the transcriptions (or whatever) are accurate. Where are the recordings themselves accessible? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100777.com, JAHtruth, Ziopedia, aargh, ihr, National Vanguard, etc. are not reliable sources. Period. They cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, for any purposes, even external links. I've removed the worst of it. Please provide reliable sources. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (I'm amazed at myself for not having noticed those; I just stopped at the first one I saw...thanks.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That those sites are "unreliable" is your opinion, which others do not share. In the specific situation where they are transcribing a speech, they are reliable IF they are accurately transcribing tha speech. Period. There is no other basis on which to measure their reliability in that context. And that is the only thing we're discussing here. We are not discussing any other thing those cites may or may not say. Wjhonson 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. These sites are unreliable by Wikipedia's standards. Period. Any citations to those sites and others like them, regardless of content, will be deleted, and I guarantee you with 100% certainty that the community will back me on this; we've been through this before. The only articles in which sites such as JAHtruth, 10077 and so on are acceptable as sources are articles about (for example) holocaust denial, neo-Naziism, and tin-foil-hat design. Their reliability is not being measured in a particular context; their reliability is non-existant period by nature of what they are in their entirety. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the site cited is unreliable for the transcription of the speech is the only question. That it is unreliable for that transcription is your opinion, based on no facts whatsoever. As soon as you produce any fact at all, that the transcription of that speech is not accurate, than I will accept your opinion. Otherwise, I will not. Wjhonson 22:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether or not you accept my "opinion". You need to read WP:V again: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. So, you don't get to cite unreputable sources for anything. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep twisting the argument. I have never stated that you can cite unreliable sources. I have stated that this cite, for the transcription, is not unreliable at all. Therefore all your pointing-at-policy is meaningless. The transcription is reliable and that is what the issue has always been about. Wjhonson 23:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And which reputable source has published it? It doesn't matter if the transcription is reliable -- you can't point to an unreliable source where it might happen to reside. (Why not just point to the recording? Assuming it's at a reputable place, that would suffice.)--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The audio of the speech has been on the usenet for over a decade. In that entire time, not one, single, person, has ever claimed that it was fake. Even though there are certainly enough vested interests, interested in doing so. The fact that only sites with a point-of-view would be interested in publishing it, in no way reduces the fact that the audio itself is the actual primary source that it claims to be. The link to the audio is already in the article. The links to the transcription are only for ease, as many people would probably not want to listen to a long audio, in order to verify one sentence. But you can and that ability is all that is needed to pass WP:V. Wjhonson 17:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then there's no reason at all to reduce the article's (and Wikipedia's) credibility by citing the tinfoil factory as a source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the opinion that the citations incorrectly transcribe the audio. That is the only question before us. What those sites may say about other things in other places is irrelevant. The question of reliability is satisfied by the WP:V of the speech. The transcriptions are more convenient which is why they have to stay. Wjhonson 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll need to gain consensus for that here and at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, where you've properly brought up the issue and discovered that you're not going to get much support for this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to twist it that way, but that doesn't make it reality. In the other cases of this nature, the community actually says, yes its fine. See the long discussion on Scientology where partisan websites linking to or posting transcriptions are completely acceptable. A transcription is not the same as other types of hosted pages. You seem to be alone on this issue here. Wjhonson 06:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is the earliest date for any verifiable version of the speech?

2. Were the media present, and if so, how did they report the speech? If they weren't present, why was that so?

It would be interesting to know if there is any pre-internet report or version of the speech and if so whether it is authentic. (Incidentally, tapes can be faked quite easily).

After all, this speech seems to be the main reason for interest in Benjamin H. Freedman. If the 'speech' turns out to be a hoax, then Freedman ceases to be of much interest.

Norvo 22:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, all of the recordings out there come from the same place -- National Vanguard was hawking them on usenet in the mid-'90s. It would be worthwhile to find an untainted source; and you're right -- in the absence of any clean source for anything about this speech, the article barely has reason to exist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just received a copy of Zworkin, which has some additional detail on Freedman suggesting--from an untainted source--that he is mildly notable as the orchestrator of a smear-job on an amti-communist liberal in 1950. Given his iconic status on Jew-hating websites, he's more notable tham that, of course. I raised the textual issue earlier in this discussion. Aside from snippets in various books, all I know about the Works of BHF comes from tainted sources. The nearest thing to a text I have is a copy of the bizarrely named "Facts are Facts." But even this was published at some unspecified date clearly much later tham the original text by a publishing house whose CEO is now doing time for fraud. A bit of a taint. Samhook 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're sounding a bit like the conspiracy theorists you're purporting to argue against. If someone wanted to create random texts, they'd pick someone perhaps a bit more famous than Freedman, I'd think. Look at the work we had to do, just to tweeze out the details we have so far. By this "anti-communist liberal" do you mean Anna Rosenberg? Wjhonson 06:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You see me as a good deal more conspiracy-minded than I am. I was merely lamenting the absence of a single Freedman publication with so much as a date. (For what it is worth. by the way--if anything--my judgment as a trained linguistic is that the Freedman of the Willard Hotel tape is perfectly consistent with what we are told of his biography: the accent is that of a cultivated New Yorker in the German-Jewish aristocracy born in the late 19th C.) No one who has read "Facts Are Facts" could imagine conspirators trying to father it on anyone. It is definitely not the revelation of a defecting Elder of Zion, but a compilation of Freedman's bizarre and ignorant philological and ethnic theories. Even Kevin Alfred Strom distanced himself from this work. I mean Anna M. Rosenberg. The initial is signficant in this case. Samhook 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Well why did you say *new* ? The information that he testified at the Rosenberg hearing has been in this article for a while, pointing at Sworkin and others. Btw, a transcript of the heading is on WorldCat I see. Wjhonson 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Not all the relevant information from Swonkin appears in the article yet. Samhook 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the Balfour Declaration as Evidence &c.

• • Samhook you persistantly and consistantly are wrong on these issues yet you make claims to the effect that B H Freedman is a liar and a "crazy" yet as evidence you provide that "he might not have sailed on a the Sussex"
    • No. I provided evidence that he could not have sailed on the Sussex when he claimed to have. As proof that the Sussex was not sunk on March 24, 1916, he claimed to have sailed on it many times after this date. I provided the evidence that after its torpedoing and salvage, Sussex was never returned to service. Accordingly, when Freedman claimed to have sailed on it--many times--after March 24, 1916, he lied. Samhook 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

world shaking i'd say, at best your confused on the issues something I just can't understand as "a trained linguistic" I mentioned the historical document the Balfour Declaration before and what was your linguistic response?

• • Or maybe you Samhook and jpgordon believe that the Balfour Declaration was also a big "Right Wing" conspiracy to make "the Jews" look bad too? that's the Question I guess.
  • IS THE BALFOUR DECLARATION FAKE!.I mean it could be, have you seen it?, i mean really read the document, the original? lets delete any reference to that as well. we will need to look at the whole article on that I guess, Samhook you go get your eraser, Jp get your round about and inapropriate use of the abstract “original research” term and excuses that the references aren’t good, we are going a "history deleting" after all the allies won and that's us so we have the right don't we? goodbye Balfour Declaration. -Theblackbay 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bet I can prove it’s not real I’m starting with this character Lord Balfour who says he was a real person ………. ……fade out mumbling rambling………. ......... god damit right wing conspiriscy ...... .... -Theblackbay 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I have no idea what you are going on about. Who said anything about the Balfour declaration being fake? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likewise. Once more into the bteach, dear friends, once more:
        • No one disputes the reality of the Balfour Declaration. I doubt there are many historians who do not think that it was issued largely out of public relations onsiderations.
        • But the Freedman claim being discussed here is not that the Balfour Declaration was issued, but that an unnamed group of Zionists offered to embroil the United States in the war as the price of the Declaration. For this, he provided no evidence whatever. The existemce of the Declaration is not evidence, nor is his claim to have attended the Versailles Comferemce, which even if true does not bear on the issue. Here, as everywhere in Freedman's historical revisionism, he provides only unsupported assertions. Since many of these are flatly false on the historical record, I am astounded that you give him any credence whatever. Samhook 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to have criticism

It's great to have criticism but there is a point, the document would not be the as good without it, without you guys Jp Samook the article would be a wreck, but what I want to add is don't wreck it if it is relevant and historically referenced it should be in the article, the Balfour Declaration is absolutely relevant and referenced.

I here transcribe an article from the NYT in its entirety: BEGIN QUOTE New York Times, May 7 1948 "Witness Admits Aiding Arab Cause "Freedman, Testifying in Libel Case, Cooperated on Note to State Department "Counsel for the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League offered evidence yesterday that Benjamin Freedman, anti-Zionist founder of the League for Peace With Justice in Palestine, cooperated with an Arab publicist in preparing a memorandum for presentation to the State Department in behalf of the Arab cause. "Mr Freedman was on the stand for the third day in Mid-Manhattan Magistrates' Court where his attorney, Hallam M. Richardson, is seeking a criminal libel complaint against the anti-Nazi league. Under intensive cross-examination by Julius L. Goldstein, the witness identified as in his handwriting several notes scribbled on a newspaper clipping telling of a meeting between Arab delegates and then Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson. "The article, which was published in a New York newspaper on May 11, 1946 has as its heading: "U.S. Reassures Arabs on Any Palestine Shift." It went on to say that Mr. Acheson told his Arab visitors that no policy changes would be made without consultation with them and with the Jews. "In an adjoining column Mr. Freedman had written: "It was worth all the effort." Alongside a paragraph reporting that the Arabs had read to Mr. Acheson a memorandum outlining their position on Palestine, there was this comment, which Mr. Freedman admitted was in his handwriting: "Prepared by myself and Katibah Thursday. "Later "Katibah" was identified by Mr. Goldstein as Habib Hatibah, editor for the Institute of Arab-American Affairs. In earlier testimony Mr. Freedman denied that he had anything to do with the May 10 conference or with the preparation of the memorandum. However, he admitted making numerous telephone calls to the State Department and to Ministries of the Arab states. "The heading was interrupted frequently to permit other cases to be brought briefly before Magistrate Hyman Busherl. At one point, the magistrate broke in to inquire into the status of Mr. Freedman's religious affiliations. ""Let me get something straight," the magistrate said. "The other day you said you were born of Jewish parents but you also speak of studying to be a Catholic. Are you a Catholic?" "Mr. Freedman replied that he had taken instructions to become a Catholic but that "certain pressure was brought to bear" that kept him from being baptized. He suggested that the "pressure" was from "Zionists." ""Oh. I see." said Magistrate Bushel. "The Jews put you out and the Catholics won't have you." The audience laughed. "I was too discreet to go back to the Jesuit priests under whom I studied and press the issue." the witness explained. END QUOTE

Wjhonson 17:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another BEGIN QUOTE New York Times, May 8, 1948, pg 4 "Anti-Zionist Tells of Dinner in Capital "Benjamin Freedman, anti-Zionist founder of the League for Peace With Justice in Palestine, testified yesterday in Mid-Manhattan Magistrates' Court that last winter he discussed partition at a dinner of fifty-two members of Congress and that he gave to each Representative literature and advertisements opposing partition and political Zionism. "Mr. Freedman who said he paid the bill for the dinner, which amounted to either $452 or $482, told of the dinner under examination by Julius I Goldstein, counsel for the Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League. Mr Freedman's attorney, Hallam M. Richardson, is seeking a criminal libel complaint against the anti-Nazi league. "Mr. Freedman said the dinner followed a meeting with Representative Edward Gosset of Texas, at which he discussed the Palestine situation. Mr. Freedman said he later continued the discussion with nine other Representatives and still later, spoke at the dinner, held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. "Mr. Goldstein asked the witness about various corporations and individuals, most of whom Mr. Freedman said he did not know. He declared, however that he was acquainted with Charles Passman, president of the Eagle Lock Company. He said he was "very friendly" with Mr. Passman and frequently visited him and his wife. "Magistrate Hyman Bushel, before whom the testimony is being taken, remarked at one point in the lengthy proceedings that, "I have only nine years more to go as a magistrate; do you think you'll finish by then?" "The hearing was adjourned until 11 A.M. next Wednesday." END QUOTE

Wjhonson 17:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one discussed what exactly this lawsuit was about. BEGIN QUOTE New York Times, Jul 8, 1946 "Ready to Meet Suit Jewish Group Says "Officers and members of the executive committee of the American Jewish Committee, against whom a suit for $5,000,000 damages was filed recently in the Supreme Court by Benjamina H. Freedman of The League for Peace with Justice in Palestine, announced their readiness yesterday to meet the issues cited in the complaint. "Dr. John Slawson, executive vice president of the American Jewish Committee, issued a statement from its offices, 386 Fourth Avenue, that said: "This suit brought by Mr. Freedman will give us an opportunity to demonstrate in court the nature and character of the so-called 'League for Peace with Justice in Palestine' and Mr. Freedman's role in it. "Named as defendants are Joseph M. Proskauer, president of the American Jewish Committee; Jacob Blaustein, chairman of the executive committee; National Ohrbach, treasurer; Edward Lazansky and Fred Lazarus Jr., vice presidents; Alan M. Stroock, vice chairman of the executive committee, and Ralph E. Samuel, chairman of the New York Chapter of the American Jewish Committee. "Mr. Freedman sued because of a memorandum circularized two months ago by the American Jewish Committee, which said that advertisements in newspapers, inserted in behalf of the league and purporting to speak for Christian, Jewish and Arab groups, really represented only Mr. Freedman. The memorandum said also that Mr. Freedman did not have the backing of any organization or group and that he was engaged in propaganda to keep Palestine closed to Jewish immigration." END QUOTE

Wjhonson 17:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow unbelievable find, how did you come across that one? ease up, your starting to make my research ability look bad ;) i'll have to try harder. -Theblackbay 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have argument that the Willard hotel Audio should be a reliable reference regardless of the site it is on, unless persons wish to claim that it was digitally edited? the point of distribution is irrelevant, the file is the recording.

Plus how is Ziopedia not a reliable source it is simply a transcript of the Audio? it is an encyclopaedia on Zionism?

Do we question famous Audio bands songs true source because they are distributed through bad street vendors sometimes or as bootleg? -Theblackbay 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ziopedia's not a reliable source, that's all. The point of distribution is always relevant; that's the "reliable" part of "reliable source". The most extreme example, I guess, is ihr.org and other denial sites -- they're openly dedicated to falsehood, so nothing they provide can be trusted. -- Interesting NYT clips, good work. I wonder what became of those lawsuits? (By the way, for people not from New York, the Supreme Court there is actually the lowest, not the highest, court.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wjhonson, where did you find this material? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material above, which I quoted, was transcribed, by myself and no one else, from the actual photographic originals of articles from the New York Times. The photographic originals are maintained by the New York Times themselves, on their own historical article site. Wjhonson 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted an RFC for this article, hoping to get some more input regarding the acceptability of lunatic fringe websites as sources for quotes and data. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Here's the full text of the RFC: Talk:Benjamin H. Freedman -- a dispute about sources. One editor claims that extremist and "nutcase" sites are not reliable sources for any information whatsoever; another editor disagrees. 23:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My question was *where* did you post the RfC? Wjhonson 06:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh! Over at WP:RFC/POLITICS. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

If this is the reason for the existence of the Rfc, this is going to be simple. Jahtruth.net is in no way a reliable source as it meets none of the guidelines listed at WP:RS. Thus, anything cited to jahtruth.net would be problematic in terms of WP:RS, but also WP:V and WP:NOR. If other sources that have been cited in this article are similar to jahtruth.net, well, they don't belong, either. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion that refuses to even understand the debate will be discounted. There is no way, under any interpretation, that a transcription can be viewed as WP:OR. Any there is also no way, that a quote from that transcription can be viewed as WP:OR. Hopefully any new comments will address those issues directly, instead of trying to paint this debate as something it's not. Wjhonson 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even talking about the transcription, though; I'm talking about your insistance on including links like vho.org, sweetliberty.org, and iamthewitness.com as sources. That's what I've been removing and you've been reverting, in case you didn't notice -- not the link to the utterly loony jahtruth.org's copy of the transcription. Hopefully, any new comments will address the issue of reliable sources, which is the only issue here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the links to the unreliable sources and asked for proper sourcing. Please do not remove the fact templates unless reliable sources can be found. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links are transcripts. The mischaracterization of the issue, as an issue over the reliability of *other* pages on the sites misses the mark. The links are simply transcripts of the audio portion. I've added them back. They are, in fact, reliable sources. Wjhonson 06:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in the middle of discussion is quite unpleasant. Please wait until a consensus is achieved to include unreliable sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly unreliable sources are unreliable, period. That means they are not reliable for accurately providing transcripts. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Jay a transcript is a mechanical process, it is not subject to the claim that a source has altered it unless you can prove that claim. Listening to the audio, the transcript is accurate. Whatever else the site may say on *other pages* is irrelevant to whether the transcript is reliable and verifiable. As to reverting, I see others engaging in this war *before consensus is reached* as well Jpgordon. So it seems we're both painted with the same brush.Wjhonson 17:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really need to get some broader support for your interpretation of the reliability and usability of sources. General practice on Wikipedia is and has been that unreliable sites may not be used as sources, period. In particular, sites dedicated to the propagation of falsehood (i.e., holocaust denier sites such as vho) can not in any way be considered reliable, and are not allowed except as examples of their particular diseases. I'm not making this up, y'know. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A transcript is a process carried out by living human beings, and transcripts placed on unreliable sites can be altered in any way those unreliable sources see fit. If you have non-contentious edits from reliable sources to make, please feel free to make them. If you intersperse them with restoration of the non-reliable material from the non-reliable sources, then they'll just be reverted all at once. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whjonson, I believe I was quite clear; if you want your edits to stick, don't re-insert the links to the unreliable sources, and don't remove the {{Fact|date=March 2008}} templates. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC response

Having viewed the article history[2] I have to agree that all three contested sources fail WP:RS. An audio link is insufficient because audio files can be manipulated. Durova 22:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point me to the policy that asserts that? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would accept the audio as the source then why are we having this revert war? It's disruptive to continue to remove citations when what you really want is for me to cite the audio itself don't you think? If citing the audio would be sufficient then state that. Wjhonson 17:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state this again: an audio file from an unreliable source is not acceptable. Audio files can be manipulated. Durova 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can state it fifteen times, it doesn't make it policy. All files can be manipulated. No one has ever come forward to claim that this audio file is unreliable in all the years it's been available. And I would note, that it has existed since before digital editing. Wjhonson 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Durova has changed his position here. Originally he says An audio link is insufficient because audio files can be manipulated; I questioned that. Then he said an audio file from an unreliable source is not acceptable. Two very different things; I don't question the latter, since "X from an unreliable source is not acceptable" is true for pretty much any X. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To broadly paint the entire contents of a domain by some of what they host is over-reaching. The transcript is accurate, and I have *yet* to hear you suggest any other way to cite the statements made in it. Do you actually have some constructive way to cite it? Or are you just edit-warring so you can type in all caps? Wjhonson 05:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good reason to edit-war, yeah. I'm actually somewhat confused. Why do you keep bringing up the transcript? It's not even in play in the interchange we've been having in the last few days; the transcript you were pointing to is on jahtruth.org, while you've been re-inserting (and jayjg and I have been removing) references to the far more pernicious vho.org, an explicitly holocaust denial website, and the references are not to a transcript of audio material, but rather a reprint of an article from the Journal of Historical Review (also a guaranteed unreliable source.) Oh, I see - another is www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm, which at the very top indicates that the contents of a transcription have been drifting (is that the one you're concerned about?), which isn't too useful for reliability either. I've suggested a compromise over at WT:RS -- put a disclaimer of some sort on top of the article saying that essential and reliable biographical data has not been found, so data from unreliable sources is being used. Anyway, I'm stopping battling on this other than on talk pages; my apologies for warring. Strong feelings about basic policy led to to improper action. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources, such as transcripts are discouraged by Wiki, unless published by a reliable publisher. If you are summarizing what is in the transcript, that is original research. If you just using to describe what the transcript says, without editorial comment, then it may be OK, if you are using a reliable publisher. Ramsquire 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The audio is in the public domain. The links are at the bottom of the article. You can listen to it yourself and confirm that the transcript is accurate. Wjhonson 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the audio is in the public domain is irrelevant. Whether the transcript is accurate is unfortunately, also irrelevant. If you are summarizing an audio transcript, that is original research. If the audio transcript has been published by a reliable publisher, then it can be used in a limited sense. See WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Ramsquire 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing is not OR, it is source-based research. And secondly I'm not summarizing anything. I'm quoting. You should review WP:NOR to see what the difference is between original research and source-based research. Wjhonson 16:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong. And I'm not challenging the information as innaccurate. I'm challenging the use of a primary source, where a secondary source would probably be better for Wiki purposes. All I'm saying is that it would be better if you got a secondary source for your information. From WP:OR: "It also excludes editors' ... personal analysis or interpretation of published material, ... That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.Ramsquire 17:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yes I forgot to take those extra qualuudes this morning. I'm familiar with the policy, I contribute to the policy pages from time-to-time myself. We are allowed to summarize, in fact that's the majority of what we do is summarize and connect statements together to make an article flow. However in this situation, the issue isn't whether I'm doing OR, it's that the sites in question are deemed unreliable by some editors. I challenge that categorization. As for the primary versus secondary consideration, I would note that this speech, by the subject of the article, is usable. However since a 90 minute speech is not very easy for the casual reader to use, there should be no problem linking to the transcript of that speech. In particular, he states that he knew Morgenthau. Another editor removed that, even though Freedman himself states it, in his speech. Remembering that wikipedia is not about *truth* but about *verifiability*. If the man states it, in his own voice, in his own speech, which is in the public domain, it's verifiable. Wjhonson 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problems is that I am not sure where "summarizing" ends and where "personal interpretation" ends with a lot of editors here at Wiki. So when I source check I look for it to match almost word for word. I'm not accusing of you of going over the line, but just stating my bias against editors summarizing things. That said, didn't Mr. Freedman write a book? Wouldn't his biographical information be in the book? That should be sufficient to deal with the first source. As for the transcripts, the problem is that it seems that the consensus here is that it was not published by a reputable site in relation to the site. So I am not sure it can be used here at Wiki, unless another publisher is found. Also, if we were to find an agreed upon reliable publisher of the transcript, we'd still have to worry about synthesizing information, which is a form of original research. Can Freedman's book be used as a source for the other information?Ramsquire 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is merely a passing reference to WHEN he died. Nothing more or less. To falsely characterize this link as what it's not deceptive. Robert John, who had interviewed Freedman, knew when he died. That's it. It's not a subversive attempt to prove that he lived a long time because he was an anti-Zionist or anything else. Drilling up to the index page and then shouting "It's a Holocaust Denial site"! is ridiculous. First because it's not, and second because this transcript of a paper presented at a conference, and hosted on this site, is only being used to show when Freedman died. Wjhonson 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait a sec. Are you actually asserting that vho.org is not a holocaust denial site, or am I misinterpreting? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You are using unreliable sources, and removing request for citation. Any edits which do that will simply be reverted, as has been explained several times. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you, just deleted a dozen changes I had made that had nothing at all to do with this issue. Wjhonson 04:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take it you (a) missed my question about vho, or (b) don't care that you're repeatedly inserting a cite to an intrinsically unreliable source. He did warn you exactly what would happen if you re-inserted those cites. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon this is just my personal view but the idea of "holocaust denial" is laughable and silly it just sounds childlike to me, I could understand revision but Holocaust Denial sounds like something year 4 children yell at a 6 year old because he stole some orange juice.

of course the EU makes it verifiable with it's universally hated draconian law against free thought and speech but that’s just the world we live in.

To even use it as an excuse to invalidate verifiable data is incorrect in my opinion. but that's just my opinion. -Theblackbay 20:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this here, just in case it proves useful later. New York Times, Jul 27, 1924, pg 23 "Married" : "Mr and Mrs Baldwin Schlesinger, 275 Central Park West, announce the marriage of their daughter Ethel to Milton S. Salsbury July 21, 1924" Wjhonson 06:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times, Aug 17, 1927, pg 23 "Deaths" : "Salsbury, Milton Samuels on Aug 15, 1927, beloved husband of Ethel and father of Nate, dearly beloved son of the late Nate Salsbury and Rachel, dear brother of Nate Salsbury, Rebecca Strand and Rachel Schloss. Funeral services Thursday Aug 18, 10 AM at the chapel of the Society of Ethical Culture, 2 West 64th St." Wjhonson 06:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Freedman is a neo nazi hoax, pure and simple. There is not one shred evidence of his existence outside of neo nazi, white supremacist, and some Islamist, web sites. Many have differing and conflicting so called biographies. Yet all are bound by one overiding common theme, antisemitism. Propogating this myth is a diservice to those seeking truth and knowlege and a boon to those who seek to propogate the hatred that resulted in the murder of millions and a world war. Michael Allen

If Benjamin Freedman was just a neo nazi hoax, Arnold Forster would not have mentioned him as a real person in the book Square One (ISBN: 1-55611-104-5, hardcover, on page 121) Nikolas Ojala

Yes apparently Michael Allen did not actually read the article. There are many, independent sources showing that Freedman actually existed. We'd have more if more newspapers had historical articles online. We're just lucky that at least the New York Times does. Wjhonson 06:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking a heck of a lot better there; really good research work. Kudos to Wjhonson for the detailed source finding; the Social Security Death Index is sure a superior and more reliable source than vho.org could ever be. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To who ever linked the full speech... is it just me or has anybody else listened to the preceding up to 7.20 min?

Not related to the article but that is pretty amazing.

Wjhonson I did start this article but I’m dedicating it to you for your work. -Theblackbay 20:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello as the external link named "the Benjamin Freedman Speech" links to a unreferenced amateur document called "the 25 lies of Benjamin Freedman" which is full of errors and historical mistruths that when countered and corrected are reverted back to the original error I am deleting it.

It may have some use in the Criticisms section but as it is unreferenced and seems to be authored by some one with a very controlled basic knowledge of WW1, I’m not sure as to what use it would be there.

If the Principal of Wikipedia is to give facts then this external link goes against everything Wiki is about.

I tracked this deleted link down. While it is polemical to a degree that would not pass muster here as an article, and lacking documentation, it reflects a far better knowledge of WWI than that evinced by Freedman. It would appear that this anonymous editor--not identified by an IP address--simply disagrees with statemens made in the link and so has killed it. Can we all do this? And what's wrong with amateurs? Is the anonymous editor a professional encyclopaedist? If so, from what encyclopaedia or encyclopaedias does he make his living? Inquiring minds want to know. Samhook 05:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It serves no purpose to append "but he presented no evidence for this claim" after any controversial claim. It's an empty sentence, and the repetition sounds contrived to smear without citation. Possibly a better approach would be to simply say, "He made many controversial claims." or something to that effect. Really you should be citing an authority for the concept that his claims are suspect in the first place. And that authority should not be yourself. Wjhonson 09:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of Freedman's claims being contradicted, one may review the record of the US media performance in World War I until the time the US entered the war. This is discussed in Walter Millis, THE ROAD TO WAR. What is very clear is that the New York media was sympathetic to Britain from the very start of the war. Partly this can be accounted for by the fact that J. P. Morgan began lending to Britain almost from the very beginning of the war. Morgan had enough influence in the New York media to make sure that anyone he lent money to would be given a sympathetic hearing. But Millis also makes the point that most US newspapers of that era simply did not have people trained in foreign languages to a sufficient extent to be avoid dependence on the British media. During normal peacetime, the easiest way for US media to report on Europe was to simply read the British newspapers and then relay that message across the Atlantic. When war broke out most US newspapers just naturally inclined to continue the same pattern, although this meant that the bias of the British media was transferred into reporting in the United States. Millis gives many details on this.

Now what Freedman asserts is that the US media was actually "pro-German" up until "October 1916," at which point he claims that the Balfour Declaration (which wasn't issued until November 1917) somehow brought about what Freedman characterizes as a complete reversal in the media. That contradicts all known information about the US media, which was consistently sympathetic to Britain from the beginning of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.8 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Common sense freedman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons why we shouldn't have Freedman's qualification as Jewish American in the lead:

1. He is a convert from Judaism and this could give the misleading impression that he practiced Judaism.
2. WP:MOSBIO clearly states: Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

   it isn't.

--Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not sure why people keep adding it. Even worse, it's entirely unsourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to include that he was a convert from Judaism in the lede since it is connected to his notability. But I agree that we shouldn't include any further emphasis and certainly shouldn't call him "Jewish-American" without much better sourcing given how hard to define "Jewish" is and how controversial that matter can be. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"He contended that these newspapers were pro-German before the war,"

In fact, Freedman goes so far as to allege that the newspapers had been pro-German as late as 2 years into the war. He specifically states October, 1916, as the alleged point in time when the newspapers stopped being pro-German. That goes much further than simply being pro-German before the war, and every study of US entry into the war which I've ever run across has always maintained that the US media tilted towards Britain from the very beginning. Whoever wrote in the words "before the war" is giving Freedman too much slack by altering his claim to sound more plausible than it really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.124.169 (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article claimed Freedman was known for his anti-Communist activism. According to what reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why is the following present in this article? His World War I draft registration card states that he was living at 340 West 86th in New York.[9] A few houses away, at 309 lived Samuel D. Leidesdorf. The 1925 New York City directory lists "Benj H Freedman (Freedman-Salisbury Co) h340 W 86th".[10] Also living at the same address is "Mrs Moritz Freedman", his widowed mother. His partner in this company is listed as "Milton S Salisbury imprs 233 Bway R2156". New York Times, May 10, 1924, pg 21: "Dissolution Notice": The co-partnership of Freedman-Salsbury Co., composed of Benjamin H Freedman and Milton S. Salsbury, and also doing business as the Herkules Saw Sales Co. of America with address at 233 Broadway, New York City, has been dissolved. - Milton S Salsbury[11]

Can any of this be summarized by the person who added it? Or at least state why it is here and why anyone should care? Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call taking that out. There's also a slight BLP concern having that in name space since we have no reason to think that Salsbury is deceased. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:Wjhonson, back in October 2006. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving this to this talk page and when someone comes up with citation, it can be added back. Right now, it's just stuck in there like sore toe without context. Freedman was an advisor^{[citation needed]} to Nelson Bunker Hunt an American businessman most famous for his silver dealings;^[1] as he was a friend of his father H. L. Hunt, who was widely believed to be the richest man in the world at the time of his death. Skywriter (talk)

Someone should write a short article on the Common Sense referred to in this article. The only one that comes to mind is Thomas Paine's Common Sense so the context for what this article refers to is unclear. Skywriter (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this section was tagged in May, has not been fixed. I checked the Internet archive and find that the URL is wrong. so I'm moving it to this page until someone fixes it. Also, how wonderful/credible a resource is National Vanguard?

According to the National Vanguard,

When I met him many years ago, he told me - I assume truthfully - that when he and his wife were in an elevator of the very expensive apartment building in New York City in which he then lived, and the very rich Jews who lived in the same building entered the same elevator, they would spit all over his and his wife's clothing to show their disapproval by a typical Jewish gesture. Freedman, however, did not intend to betray his race; on the contrary, he was convinced (it seems, mistakenly) that he was racially a real Jew, whereas most Jews were Turko-Mongolians who had disguised themselves as Jews and cunningly come to dominate the Jewish race, which he certainly did not intend to deprecate, much less betray. On the contrary, he imagined that he was, at great self-sacrifice, protecting his own people from the reprisals that might someday fall upon them.^[2]

Skywriter (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this for 3 seconds and decided to remove it on grounds the source has zero credibility. National Vanguard would not be quoted in any other article except perhaps to establish their own bonafides, and it is more than a bit over the top to quote them in this biographical piece. I think it is unfair. I tried to balance it by adding some explanation of what national vanguard but that is plainly not enough and does not justify its inclusion.

According to Kevin Alfred Strom of the National Vanguard, which is described as a white separatist, Neo-Nazi hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.^[3][4]:

So, despite our gratitude to Freedman for his insider's revelations of Jewish activities against America and against Whites, and despite our admiration for his courage in defecting from the power structure he served for so many decades, we must essentially discard his religious ramblings and some of his more extreme conclusions dependent on the Khazar hypothesis in its purest form. If in his religious hobbyhorses he displayed a flaw common to almost all of mankind, and if in his adherence to the Khazar theory of Jewish origins he fell prey to a false idea that has charmed even scholars, we may forgive him.^[5]

The above was removed because it is not a reliable source. WP:RS. Skywriter (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars..................And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:

"Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God's chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews."

Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted]. And it's just as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be... there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty four million ! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief."--79.212.54.17 (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Robert[reply]

"The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it's known all over the world. Now, what are we going to do ? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it."--79.212.54.17 (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Robert[reply]

Hi. What suggestions do you have to improve the article? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually posted it just for discussions and so on^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.212.54.17 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. See WP:TALK. Article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not for general discussion of the subject or a platform for the ideas of the subject. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedman argued that the majority of jews today are not Semitic (middle easter origin - sons of Noah) but are from Easter European origins (Khazars and others). Although his opponents called him an anti-semite, it does not describe him accurately. "known for his anti-semetic views and writing" belongs to "Criticisms" since his critics viewed him as such. This does not belong in the introduction of the page. Freedman repeatedly criticized Zionism which is a political movement. Since so much of his efforts was to oppose the Zionist movement's efforts in aiding immigration to Palestinian territories, it would be fair to have his efforts mentioned in the introduction. (not just an anti-semetic convert that made soap)

I have made the edit a few time and in matter of hours they have been undone by activist users (RolandR for example). I understand political views and their right for expression. But inserting misinformation about the subject is not acceptable.Facts are your friends (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]