Talk:The Forward/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Famous Peeps

Someone should start compiling a list of important dudes and ladies that have written for the paper. I guess I'll start. Lamed Shapiro, Bashevis Singer, Israel Joshua Singer, Abe Cahan...ok, there are too many - 00:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Lazer Stein (talk)

Name

Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

What's the name of the publication? Is it "The Forward", or just "Forward"? If it's just "Forward", then should the article name be adjusted accordingly?--A bit iffy 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it goes by either, however the official site seems to indicate it is indeed The Forward. (think, Der Forvertz). -- pm_shef 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I support changing article name to "Forward". I haven't done a name-change, and don't have time now to work on that, but someone should do so. As viewed today, the official site consistently indicates that the newspaper's name is simply Forward in English, and פֿאָרווערטס (Forverts) in Yiddish. For the English paper's name, look at the images of the paper itself on the Subscriptions or Advertise page. For the Yiddish paper's name, look at its own website, which, interestingly, is consistent with the photo of a 1936 issue of the paper within this very article.

For my 2¢, this is also exactly what the "Our history" page indicates. However, if anyone still needs convincing, check out the Contact page and the Masthead page. Any remaining doubts should immediately vanish with a glance at the New Subscription page or the 4 issues free page.

--rich<Rich Janis 09:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)>

The logo on whatever of these pages isn't dead reads The Jewish Daily Forward, not "The Forward" which is a nickname, like calling The New York Times "The Times". --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The "free e-newsletter" that can be subscribed to via the link at the top of http://www.forward.com/ is labeled as being sent from and by "The Forward". This is a reasonable short form of the newpaper's full name, "The Jewish Daily Forward". The Yiddish weekly publication is named "Forverts", without an article (which would be grammatically incorrect), and the bannerhead translation is given as "Yiddish Forward", not "Forward". --Futhark|Talk 19:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the e-newsletter; I subscribed and just got my first one. Although I don't pretend that this is an easy issue to resolve, I must, again, disagree. In this newsletter, exactly as in the "Our history" page of the website, the publisher capitalizes the word "the" only when it is at the beginning of a sentence or heading; in mid-sentence, however, it is not capitalized. The newsletter dated Aug 30, 2007, says, "A guide to the Forward, week of August 31, 2007." To me, that shows the word "the" to be there merely for grammatical purposes, not as a part of the formal name. Once again, though, I return to the fact that we are discussing the name of a newspaper, and the newspaper itself shows its name as, simply, Forward. Also, most scholarly and journalistic references that I've found cite this publication as "Forward" or "the Forward" or "The Forward"; i.e., they italicize the word "Forward" but do not italicize the word "the" (even when "The" is capitalized for grammar). Similarly, for its earlier life as a daily, citations almost always show its name as "Jewish Daily Forward" or "the Jewish Daily Forward" or "The Jewish Daily Forward". I readily agree that the paper is almost always referred to (especially informally) with the word "the", but there are many other names that we treat similarly (e.g., the Netherlands, the Ukraine, the United States of America); this could be partly an idiosyncrasy of the English language, and partly a matter of custom, and--for this newspaper--partly because the publisher simply goes along with it--as in their continuing to say "The Jewish Daily Forward" in the banner on the home page of their website, despite the fact that it hasn't been a daily for many years. --rich<Rich Janis 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)>

Per WP:COMMONNAME, if "The Forward [is] commonly known as The Jewish Daily Forward," the article title should be the latter. As well, the logo on the paper's own site reads the Jewish Daily Forward. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Let's move it and rearrange things slightly in the lead sentence to reflect that. It's probably not controversial since you're responding to a comment from 2007 here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the current "common" name is the longer one; I suspect that a review of sources would suggest that the first line is actually backwards, and more accurately would read, "The Jewish Daily Forward, commonly known as The Forward (Yiddish: פֿאָרווערטס; Forverts)", etc. Where that takes us in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, I am not sure. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point, yet we should note that no one in conversation in New York calls The New York Times anything but "The Times", and no one calls the New York Post anything but "The Post" — but the Wikipedia articles are still The New York Times and the New York Post. I can't really think of an example on Wikipedia where for newspapers we use anything but the actual name as the article title. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So following The New York Times, the New York Post, and every other newspaper, is there any objection to having an admin move the article to its formal name, The jewish Daily Forward? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't need no stinkin' administrator to move it!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You rock, dude! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper changed its name in 2015 by dropping "Jewish Daily" from its name. It is just known as "The Forward" now.[1] Jason from nyc (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should rename the article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess the issue is whether since the name change, under wp:commonname, the RSs have predominantly referred to it as The Forward. Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"[circulation] had dropped to 170,000 by 1939 as a result of changes in U.S. immigration policy that restricted the immigration of Jews to a trickle" - this is illogical; newspapers do not depend on a fast-rising population. The population had not fallen, indeed, the 'American Jewish' population continued to rise. It seems much more likely that cultural changes within the target readership would account for the fall, or issues with the quality or political outlook of the paper - not a reduction in European refugees! Heenan73 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The new Jewish immigrants spoke mostly Yiddish, and the Forward was a Yiddish paper. Older Yiddish speaking/reading readers were dying, and newer ones could no longer immigrate. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bas relief portraits

Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion

Someone who preferred to believe a mistaken New York Times article revised my identification of the German Socialist leaders memorialized by the bas relief portraits on the facade of the Forward building. The Times article's author wrote that Karl Liebknecht was there rather than August Bebel. Karl Liebknecht's father Wilhelm (one of the founders of German social democracy) might well have been considered for inclusion in this pantheon, but Karl (later to be a founder of the German Communist Party) was too young and too radical for the Forward to have honored in 1910. They chose to honor August Bebel, the leader of the German Social Democratic Party at the time, and a man who famously wrote that anti-Semitism was the "socialism of fools." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.106.171 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I can find several reliable sources saying the portrait is of Karl Liebknecht, but none saying it is Bebel. Do you know of any that do? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK Jayig, have it your way. Most contemporary journalists have no idea who Karl Liebknecht or August Bebel were, so there is no reason to privilege the mistaken opinions of "reliable" people who happen to have written for publication about something they don't really know. Especially as the same error has been repeatedly copied by lazy journalists who don't question what earlier writers mistakenly published. You could just look at portraits and photos of the two, consider their age in 1910 and their relative influence on Yiddish-speaking socialists in New York and come to a reasoned conclusion. That's what I did. I live down the street from this building and am quite familiar with German socialist history, so I thought I was doing the right thing in correcting an error in this Wikipedia article. But it is not worth my time to continue correcting your deluded loyalty to mistaken newspaper articles. As Stalin once wrote, "paper never rejected ink." Same goes for pixels, I guess. Write whatever nonsense you please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.104.51 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ACCURACY trumps rote repetition of sources. Karl Liebknecht was elected to parliament in Germany for the first time in 1912. There is absolutely NO WAY that he was placed into the pantheon in a facade created in that year. It flies in the face of logic and I don't care if some harried journalist said it was so in the New York Times... I have rewritten to remove reference to either August Bebel (who WOULD logically be a candidate for inclusion, by the way) and Karl Liebknecht alike. This is not something where we can "poll sources" on and announce that it's A not B based on a 3 to 1 vote. It is SOMEONE, and it's probably not Karl Liebknecht. Just because the New York Times prints something doesn't make it true. Carrite (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Other candidates have included his father, Wilhelm. There's also an article in The Forward from March 2002 that discusses the uncertainty, suggesting it might be Friedrich Adler, among other candidates. Unfortunately I don't have access to a copy of that edition, and the online archive only goes back to March 2003. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Handy-dandy identification guide:

If there are any photos of the reliefs, themselves, it ought to be simple enough to settle this matter on their basis. The anonymous participant in the discussion indicated that the sculptures are readily visible on the facade of the building, so it ought to be possible for someone to make the photo gallery here handier and dandier. --Futhark|Talk 08:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See here: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g128/davidbellel/david2/forward-faces2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://knickerbockervillage.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html&usg=__EsqRFE6X0ZJOUsuP-OV6xy_Kbsw=&h=525&w=509&sz=106&hl=en&start=7&itbs=1&tbnid=vFjs1FX2x4TD_M:&tbnh=132&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dforward%2Bbuilding%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1

The author of the article associated with this image printed a photo of Karl Liebknecht next to the bas relief of Bebel. But if you look at the headshot of August Bebel in the Wikipedia article, you will not be in doubt of the identity of subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.22.240 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it looks just like him. Too bad WP:NOR isn't allowed in articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not an excuse for knowingly permitting incorrect information to stand. I believe it's time to migrate the discussion in footnote 15 into the body of the article, with a footnoted reference to the Bebel article. It is possible to suggest that readers might wish to assess the similarity between two images for themselves, without violating the constraints on either NOR or POV. I'll do the editing in the next day or two unless somebody else beats me to it. --Futhark|Talk 09:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But the article didn't "knowingly permit[] incorrect information to stand", and one certainly cannot include (or refer to) Talk: page discussions in article, nor reference blogs. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR carefully. That fact that we think it looks like Bebel is not something we can reference in an article, we need reliable sources. And by the way, contrary to your edit, the blog in question never "includes a commentary suggesting that it may have been August Bebel". However, it's not relevant, since we can't use it anyway, per WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant maybe but not "made up": https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5915315601746686664&postID=2029911533005770445, but since when are neutral cf suggestions counter to academic practice? --Futhark|Talk 08:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. An anonymous response to the blog said it was Bebel. No doubt the same anonymous editor who commented above, since both the comment here and on the blog were made on March 24 of this year. Since when is it academic practice to cite anonymous comments written on blogs? Anyway, please review WP:SPS. That is Wikipedia's policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact remains that absent explicit documentation of the creator of the bas reliefs' intention, any ascription of identity to the depicted individuals is a matter of someone's personal opinion about the similarity of the reliefs to other more clearly identified portraiture. The assessment of sources for any such claim needs to be tempered by recognition of a journalist's opinion not being intrinsically more weighty than the opinion of a blog commentator. Neither media belong to the vetted scholarly literature. Suggesting to Wikipedia readers that they might wish to compare one image with another for themselves is not antithetical to sound scholarship. Add me to those listed above who are throwing in the towel on this matter. --Futhark|Talk 10:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg is right. An entry like this The article in which they appear also ascribes the identity of the fourth individual to Karl Liebknecht but includes a commentary suggesting that it may have been August Bebel. This ascription is considered further on the discussion page for the present article. The blog's not an appropriate source for inclusion per WP:RS as I discussed at that page. It's certainly not appropriate to give any weight whatsoever to an anonymous commenter at that blog. And we can't refer to talk page discussions within the text of an article.

One other comment. The NYT is considered a reliable source, I see no reason why it shouldn't be used as such. I keep seeing tossed around this notion that some assertion in an article was a reporter's opinion, could someone post up a link to the source? If it wasn't an editorial I have a hard time seeing how it was a reporter's "opinion" being stated. — e. ripley\^talk 11:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I see it now and have read it. It appears to have been some sort of remembrance they ran in the Arts section; not really a hard news story. However, the NYT is a reliable source, and the mere fact that they engaged/allowed this person to write this means that they judged him to be knowledgeable about the subject. I think the article treats the issue just right as it is; it notes that the portrait is unidentified, and then lists the people who have been floated as possibly being the subjects, including the Times article. Perfectly appropriate. It doesn't assert one identity over another, it provides readers with the information that conflicts and they can then make their own decision about it. — e. ripley\^talk 12:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No one seems to have goten this right for a long time. When the building was made a landmark, the NYC Landmark Designation Report misidentified the disputed portrait as that of Friedrich Adler (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilio_guerra/4486674964/). That was a real whopper. The son of Austrian Socialist leader Victor Adler, Friedrich is best known for his 1916 assassination of the Austrian Minister-President. He was the editor of the Austrian Socialists' magazine when the building went up, but he would have been an unlikely choice to depict (if they wanted an Austrian, they'd have picked his father). Plus he didn't remotely resemble the disputed figure.

The Museum at Eldridge Street, housed in the former Eldridge Street Synagogue, lists local historical landmarks and other attractions on their website. Their description of the Forward Building lists Bebel along with Lassalle, Marx and Engels as the "socialist icons" depicted on the facade. See http://www.eldridgestreet.org/area-guide.html. No source cited, but at least they identified the right guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.201.47 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Good find. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the correct attribution now being cited. Is, however, the confusion about it noteworthy enough to merit retaining the two incorrect attributions? The identities of the persons depicted in the first two reliefs are asserted with no sources at all beyond "see for yourself" photographs that the reader may then compare. The third such comparison pair has been deleted from the reference list, presumably because it appears in the same illustration as the mismatched pair that has finally been resolved. I suggest (and will gladly do the necessary edit) that we accept the museum source as sufficiently authoritative for all four attributions and then restore the second image reference with a note about the confusion that has attached to identifying Bebel and a cross-ref to the image in the article on him. --Futhark|Talk 06:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The second image reference was a blog, and should never have been cited. Blogs are not reliable sources. As for why we keep the others? Because it's fundamental policy: An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. If you were able to find one really, really strong source supporting Bebel, then we might relegate other views to footnotes. However, while the Museum at Eldridge website appears to us to be correct, it's the weakest source of the three; it's really just a website, without any author, and it's not even about the Forward building, except briefly in passing. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Photobucket links, not any text refs. There were two of them and you left the one in but cut the other. As has already been noted in this discussion, only one of the three attributions for the fourth relief can possibly be correct. Since you are prepared to accept the identities of the first three reliefs without demanding sources, I'm having a rough time understanding why it is so important to retain the two incorrect references to the fourth identity. Correct in this case, in accordance with a fundamental tenet of iconographic methodology, means that a clear consensus of those asked to pair the three candidate images with the relief would result from their picking the same one. That's all the support that this article provides for the assertions about the first three identities.--Futhark|Talk 08:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody restored the mistaken claims that the portrait of Bebel could be that of Wilhelm or Karl Liebknecht. There is no excuse for spreading misinformation just because mistaken identifications have been published somewhere. The portrait is so obviously that of Bebel that including the other notions is like including "intelligent design" in a textbook on evolution because there are other books and articles supporting that anti-scientific view. The truth actually matters more than rigid adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has become the main source of misinformation on this topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.140.38 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As far I can see in the history, there was a long-stable version mentioning all three "candidates"; 66.108.140.38 deleted this and replaced it with the statement that the person is Bebel based on an unsourced one-sentence mention in a post on a website called "Today in Yiddishkayt". That source certainly does not appear to be authoritative; it's not clear that it even qualifies as a reliable source, although I am willing to assume that it is for these purposes, and I added it to the footnotes. If there is a consensus here that Bebel is clearly the most likely one, I would not object to rewording the sentence to give more emphasis to Bebel in relation to the other two, but I don't think it is the best idea to delete the mentions and sources for the others, because this will only lead to confusion in the future when they come across those other sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The main reason for any confusion about this topic now is this very Wikipedia article, which has been used by a variety of writers who repeat the notion that the identity of the fourth portrait subject is "unknown" but might be one of the Liebknechts. I simply cannot understand why clearly mistaken information has to be included along with the correct identification. That would simply perpetuate the Wikipedia-based spread of misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.140.38 (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Yiddish sources linked on the Yiidishkayt pape (all available now in digitized editions through the Yiddish Book Center on archive.org) clearly indicate that the relief is August Bebel, and mention of his iconic status to the Jewish Daily Forward is prominent in all then-contemporary work and mentions his inclusion. The inability to read a language and the dependence on repeating inaccurate sources here seems like a real error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.23 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)