Talk:The International Jew

Bibliography

It's important to be precise about this antisemitic contribution to life by Henry Ford. I ask that any effort to change substantially the bibliography be discussed here first.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lacey

A useful reference is this [1]:

    CULTURAL DESK
    BOOKS OF THE TIMES
    By WALTER GOODMAN
    
    FORD: The Men and the Machine. By Robert Lacey. Illustrated. 778 pages. Little, Brown. $24.95.
    FORD is a workmanlike assemblage by an English writer of a great American family saga.
    Robert Lacey carries us briskly through almost a century of corporate fortunes
    (Model A, Model T, Mustang) and misfortunes (Edsel, Pinto).
    He makes admirably clear the technical and marketing considerations
    that have gone into each new or revised model
    and provides plenty of opportunity along the way to view the ...
    July 9, 1986

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting context

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/dearborn.html -- Nevard 12:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked image locations to fix edit link bunching

With all the images in this article, there was a serious case of edit link bunching that made it hard to edit sections in the article. I believe I've fixed this as much as can be done by a combination of brute force, removal of unneeded headings, and pure voodoo, but the page layout is now heavily dependent on the assumption that the present sections will still exist and remain the same size. It might be preferable to do this as a gallery instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WS

This page s:American Jewish Year Book/Volume 29/Statement by Henry Ford is sitting on Wikisource, all by it's self. The parent document s:/Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#American_Jewish_Year_Book is being considered for deletion, as an incomplete work. Jeepday (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Look, ViriiK, I don't actually care what this user's history is. It may well be that some, if not most, of the changes he wants are bad. But this one change seems like a good idea. From what I've seen, when a category box includes a page, the page shows the category box. Why shouldn't we do that here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I moved this wikilink here

• 9/11 advanced-knowledge debate#Israel
  

because I see no connection between it and this article - other than there are jews sort of involved. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism???

I must question why or how this article ended up being part of an "anti-Semitism" section. Anyone familiar with what the book (articles) actually say, is aware that they make a painstaking effort to differentiate Jews at large from the powerful Talmudic Zionist Jews that it actually criticizes. Ford is critical of a political movement, emphatically NOT a religion or a race. Does every person who argues in a pro-choice manner belong under an "anti-Catholicism" banner? The idea is absurd. Ford makes it clear again and again that Judaism at large is not what he is criticizing, although he does note Jewish peoples' tendency to lift one another up via preferential treatment. Does that observation make him an "anti-Semite?" Being that Arabs are a Semitic people, is the book also to be construed as anti-Arab? I could go on and on. The label reeks of amateurish, uninformed assumption, and does not belong on a serious article on Wikipedia. I challenge anyone who supports it to actually read the entire book. It can be found for free of charge all over the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.207.140 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is anything that Jews don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.218.120 (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This whole selection is bunk. I am reminded of how a roommate in college described race relations in America to me. "All n*****s are black, but all blacks are not n*****s." He, of course, was not a racist. This stuff above is pretty much the same. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Zionists and Judaism are not the same thing. And the Zionist plans are faltering very clearly. No amount of backup plans or secret oaths will allow the Zionist menace to resurface. Judaism is a noble religion ... and Zionism is a dirty power grab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Inspiration for Adolf Hitler

All this nonsense describing this book as a decisive factor in the holocaust ("Inspiration for Adolf Hitler" paragraph) should be deleted. For instance : "Without the German translation of The International Jew, it's unclear how much support Hitler could have gotten for The Holocaust." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.155.2.20 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We can quibble over the exact wording, but I think it's abundantly clear that Hitler and many of his followers derived support from The International Jew, to the point that failing to mention the connection is a violation of Wikipedia's POV policy. The Holocaust didn't officially begin until 1941, almost 3 years after Kristallnacht, 9–10 November 1938, and that didn't occur until 13 years after the appearance of Mein Kampf in 1925 -- and Mein Kampf didn't appear until 5 years after the publication of the first volume of The International Jew. From Sémelin (1993) Unarmed against Hitler and other sources, it's clear that Hitler encountered substantial resistance in his efforts to eliminate what he called "parasites" from the human genome -- and the resistance increased as time passed. In addition to the links in this brief section, there are Wikipedia articles on Action T4 and the Rosenstrasse protest, which indicate the vulnerability of the Nazis to public pressure. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Henry Ford includes 10 references to Hitler, 5 in the text and 5 in the notes; 2 of the references in the text include clear antisemitic comments. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My Struggle

Although I mentioned Hitler's My Struggle in my edit summary I did not change that part because I don't have the book with me right now. Hitler only mentioned Ford once in one sentence, nowhere is Ford cited as an authority for his views. Hitler said in the sentence that Ford was an American businessman who shared his Anti-Judaism and held out against Jewish financial interests in the one sentence, Hitler never brought up Ford again in the book. This article makes it look like Hitler cited Ford as a great influence on his Anti-Judaism in My Struggle, that is not accurate. RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I cannot change this because I don't have a source for it yet, but I know the reference to Ford was not even included in future editions of My Struggle because none of the online editions I looked at contain the Ford sentence. I'm not going to change the article to points that until I have a secondary source though. RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I located my edition of My Struggle. The only reference to Ford is this sentence "Every year makes them [American Jews] more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury still maintains full independence." Page 639 of the Mariner Books Houghton Mifflin Company Boston New York edition translated from German into English by R. Manheim. Since I have source for the fact Ford is only mentioned once in My Struggle can I change the text to reflect that, or do I need a secondary rather than primary source? RandomScholar30 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. The most important thing in Wikipedia is to present an honest, balanced assessment of the issue at hand. I just skimmed Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. If I understand correctly, two issues drive the rules of using primary vs. secondary sources: accuracy and notability. Both are well satisfied with what you've done.

I just downloaded the 1943 German-language edition from "https://ia802302.us.archive.org/18/items/Mein-Kampf2/HitlerAdolf-MeinKampf-Band1Und2855.Auflage1943818S..pdf". It's searchable, and I could not find Henry Ford's name. This matches your observation that Ford is not mentioned in later editions -- and confirms that a translation did not conveniently omit a controversial name ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

More changes to Hitler section

I think Ford's influence on Hitler has been exaggerated. In any case the way it was presented in this article was weasel words, "was an influence on Adolf Hitler and many of his followers", and was unsourced,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_International_Jew&oldid=722055680#Inspiration_for_Adolf_Hitler. I replaced that with citing a specific follower of Hitler who was influenced by Ford instead of the weasel words, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_International_Jew&direction=next&oldid=722055680. Hitler admired Ford because of his hate campaign against American Jewry, but it does not seem to me like he studied Ford's writings. Hitler's take on Jewry was very different from Ford's. Hitler viewed Freemasonry as an agent of International Jewry, whereas Ford was an apologist for Freemasonry and defended it in his writings, and Ford did not believe all Jews were programmed to be a united force, unlike Hitler. Another difference is Ford was extremely Anti-Zionist, whereas Hitler at one point considered Zionism as a way of getting the Jews out of Germany and its satellites, so I don't think Ford was as influential on Hitler as the article was portraying the case to be. Ford in general on other topics had opposite beliefs from Hitler's, he was a supporter of world government, despite his dislike of Jews, he financed Rosika Schwimmer's international conference and boat trip there in 1915. Kevin MacDonald, arguing that Ford's influence on Hitler was exaggerated, wrote "The logic seems to be that Hitler never would have heard of the Protocols except for the nefarious work of Henry Ford who was responsible for distributing it in Germany. No Henry Ford, no Holocaust.

This is ridiculous. The Protocols had been circulating in Germany since around 1918 — beforeTIJ was written. Hitler certainly didn’t need Henry Ford to be aware of the Protocols — nor were the Protocols the source of Hitler’s anti-Jewish attitudes. And, as I noted, TIJ is much more than the Protocols."http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/04/macdonald-ford/ MacDonald is almost as Anti-Jewish as Ford was, so he's not exactly objective and he probably can't be used as a source in the article itself, but I think he made valid points against the idea Ford was a great influence on Hitler, so this article should be careful not to exaggerate Ford's influence on Hitler.RandomScholar30 (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

My inclination is to think Hitler never read Ford's book, but there are some who disagree with me. Guillaume Durocher stated "Hitler famously read Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. In 1922, Hitler’s private office featured a picture of Ford and the young nationalist leader would state “I regard Ford as my inspiration” (71). Like Ford, Hitler considered The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be an accurate portrayal of Jewish behavior, whether or not the malicious motives were conscious or whether the document was authentic." http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/05/hitlers-reading-habits/ However, Durocher presented no evidence Hitler read it. The only people I've seen viewing Ford's writings as greatly influencing Hitler are either Jewish apologists such as the Anti-Defamation League and others trying to discredit Ford, or Anti-Jewish authors such as Durocher trying to give mainstream credibility to Hitler by linking him to a respected figure, I haven't seen many neutral sources holding that view. Since Durocher is not a mainstream source and does not provide evidence I don't think we can use him as a source for this article. I'll look for what other sources say. RandomScholar30 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Change section title from "Inspiration for Hitler" to "Inspiration for Nazi Anti-Semitism"?

What do you think about changing the title of the section discussing Hitler from "Inspiration for Hitler" to "Inspiration for Nazi Anti-Semitism"? That seems to more accurately reflect the reality. This book was certainly not the only inspiration, but it was one contributor. Other sources were the pograms in Russia in the late nineteenth century and the practice of forced sterilization of "imbeciles" under certain conditions, approved by a decision of the US Supreme Court around 1927. The "science" of eugenics had many followers, including the famous statistician Roland Fisher, who published extensively in the Annals of Eugenics. I don't have time to research this enough to say anything about it in the article, but clearly Ford was not the only inspiration, and I don't think the article says that. He was, however, one source, and I think this article would be biased if it didn't say something about this connection. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I support that change in the section title. Carptrash (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the title to Influence on Nazi AntiJudaism. I think influence is more neutral than inspiration because inspiration implies soul or main cause while influence implies other causes existed as well. I don't think Ford was a big influence on Hitler's AntiJudaism. Erich Ludendorff was a much a bigger influence on the conspiratorial aspects of Hitlers AntiJudaism Gobineu was a much bigger influence on the racial aspects and Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were much bigger influences on the ideological aspects. Ford held many views exactly opposite to Hitler's for example Ford was a Freemason and in The International Jew defended Freemasonry against attacks by AntiJews while Hitler viewed Freemasonry as an agency of International Jewry Ford did not believe Jews were biologically wired to be subversive he said clearly that most Jewish people only followed their leaders to a limited extent and we're not aware of their plans and mentioned Jews who were against their leaders such as Spinoza and Oscar Levy. Ford also opposed Zionism while Hitler considered Zionism during the 1930s as a possible way of getting Jewish people out of Europe. RandomScholar30 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

SPA IP editor insists this work is not anti-Semitic: Discussion

Regarding anonymous user [Special:Contributions/2405:205:2504:F4F9:0:0:726:28B1]'s edit summary:

"How can we label everything as anti-Semitic and garner sympathies? This is very disgusting attempt. There are hardly 10 million Jews in the world, why should the 7 billion people be dictated by them?)"

1. If anything is antisemitic, this particular work is. That is its premise. I am not the original author of the sentence in question, nor am I looking for anyone's "sympathies."

2. Please excuse me for disgusting you to such a great extent. That was certainly not my intent.

3. Currently, you are an IP Single Purpose Account (SPA).

4. You apparently are in agreement with Ford's viewpoint on Jews. In your stated view, Jews are the world's overlords. That is your opinion. WP articles are not bound to reflect the personal opinions of their individual editors, but only the opinions in reliable published sources.

Please discuss.--Quisqualis (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Quisqualis are you some sort of Decisive authority? It seems you're insecured about stuff that doesn't agree with your​ very own point of view. We can't keep on labelling everything like this. This is not about agreeing or disagreeing but this is about providing information in a neutral perspective. You call it anti jewish. Other 7 billion people may call it Pro-them. Neither you nor anyone else can label opinion. Information has be without any point of view and neutral. 2405:205:2325:BF88:0:0:1E07:88A0 (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

IP, this set of pamphlets is clearly antisemitic, there can be no dispute about that. "The International Jew: The World's Problem". It's really quite simply antisemitic, and Henry Ford is well known to be an antisemite. We don't need to reflect FRINGE viewpoints. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo Please keep your personal religion out of it. Who are we do to label it? How do we get any such authority? Let people read and decide for them if it is true or not. Why label it? Even if you are a Jew we have nothing against you. But vilifying a American Hero will be more than wrong. We are a democracy. You are less than 2%2405:205:2325:BF88:0:0:1E07:88A0 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the sources. All my religion has to do with this is that I may have more experience of anti-semitism than non-Jews. As it is, somebody can be an anti-semite and a great industrialist. I can name many antisemites - Charles Lindburgh, Martin Luther are but two. But denying their antisemitism? That is wrong. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo You see those are your very own personal thoughts, you can follow them at your home. You can anyone anything at your home. But when it is about public domain things need to be free from your Jewish Zionist background. Hope you understand this. Please don't insist for calling my Wikipedia friends and garnering support for this this little edit. They are good at it and there will be 100 people supporting me on this. Please accept the unbaised facts gracefully and help keeping Wikipedia unbaised. Thanks and Regards.2405:205:232E:3E16:0:0:227E:90A0 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"My Jewish Zionist background". How little CLUE you have of my life, FYI I converted to Judaism, so maybe 1/4 of my background, but certainly not all. Secondly, CANVASSING your friends (I'm refraining from a biting personal attack here, appreciate it), is against Wikipedia policy, the result will be a protected page, with you and your friends being blocked. Finally, this essentially is a matter of the sky is blue. We have multiple citations that support this, find one reliable source that disputes Ford's antisemitism. I'll wait. If you can't (Hint: you can't), then it stays. End of. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately for scholars, this book is available online at https://archive.org/stream/TheInternationalJewTheWorldsForemostProblemhenryFord1920s#page/n3/mode/2up. There it begins, “Among the distinguishing moral and mental traits of the Jews may be mentioned: distaste for hard or violent physical labor ... capacity for exploitation”. It goes downhill from there, displaying, in my mind beyond any reasonable doubt, "hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews", the first line of the Wikipedia article on Antisemitism.

Anyone who claims this work is NOT antisemitic needs to proved a reasonable analysis for explaining why this and the four volumes that follow it do not display "hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews." DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

To the IP SPA: Wikipedia is not social media. Your troll farm tactics are useless here. This page can be protected from newcomers and anonymous trolls like you. And your Russian is showing all over the place. Go worship Henry Ford on your own time (i.e., "at home").--Quisqualis (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP is Indian though, what does Russian have to do with anything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I encounter many Russian trolls and their fractured English on the Net. They often profess to be Middle-American housewives, hunters and the like. This one professed on another Talk page to be a Jew. I forgot that on the Internet, nobody can tell you're a dog, or a cat. Or a dog staying in Catland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs)

But how do you know this IP is Russian if they are based in India? You can't just assume everyone who has fractured English is Russian, and even still how did mentioning that help improve the article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no argument in your comment, you are just saying "it's antisemitic" over and over again, as if it is a self-evident truth. Mac Davis (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Date of second edition of Mein Kampf?

As of 2019-12-11 the section on "Influence on Nazi anti-Semitism" includes the sentence, "The second edition of the book removed reference to Ford", and cites "Hitler, Adolf. My Struggle. Houghton Mifflin. p. 639" for that.

The Wikipedia article on Mein Kampf says the first edition was published in two volumes. The first volume appeared in 1925; the second in 1926. It talks about other editions, but I can't find clear dates.

Can someone help with these dates? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The removal of the previous text wasn't accidental. I rewrote the sentences discussing Mein Kampf because the stated facts are unsupportable based on the use of a primary source alone. Using a primary source in this case makes such a statement Original Research. You'd have to supply a secondary source indicating (1) that Ford is the only American mentioned, and (2) that this was removed in the second edition. Citing the location where he is mentioned does not support either of these two claims. I've looked and have not found a secondary source stating this specifically. But clearly, Ford was a significant influence and this needs to be noted. So going to another source (Stone's The Untold History of the United States), we can clearly get that across and solve the OR problem. Butlerblog (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To expand on and hopefully reinforce this, I added a second secondary source (Hall) which, although it primarily restates some of the Stone information, it also indicated that Hitler was known to keep copies of The International Jew in his office - a fact that I think is directly relevant to subject of the article, more so than simply Hitler's admiration of Ford. Butlerblog (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this.

I got confused with a sentence that you deleted. I looked at the history, and concluded that I may have accidentally deleted that sentence, so I reinstated it. I'm fine with the deletion of that sentence.

On the other hand, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources does NOT say we should delete primary sources, only that we should not rely on them exclusively.

I have not looked at Nuremberg Trial Proceedings. Vol. 14. Avalon Project. 23 May 1946. p. 368. Retrieved 2016-05-25., but I object to deleting it just because it's primary.

If you've looked at it, and it doesn't support the claim made, then delete it. However, if it supports the claim, then I think the article is better serves the mission of Wikipedia by including that primary source.

Thanks again for your work on this. You know more about this than I do. I just don't want this story to be sanitized.

In that regard, I'm not happy that the image of a 2003 Arabic language edition of The International Jew was removed from this article. Part of the argument for deletion was that it was not mentioned in the text. However, the fact that an edition of the book was published in 2003 in Arabic is, I think, notable. Something should be said about it in this article, I think. However, I'm not close enough to the subject to be able to do so in a reasonable period of time. So, I rant and then desist ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page here, that the article not be sanitized. Thanks for your objection on the Nuremberg Trial - I looked at the quote again and you're right - it's an appropriate use of a primary source because it's attributable quote, and so I've put that back in. I did look for quite some time for a source that would support the other info about Mein Kampf (which would need a secondary source), but I came up empty. However, I think that the result actually shows more of Hitler's admiration for not only Ford, but The International Jew itself (since he kept copies of it in his office evidently for distribution). (I agree with you about the image deletion, for the same reasons - I was pushing to keep it and got overridden.) Butlerblog (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Outcome of the libel suit?

What was the result of the 1927 libel suit?

I thought I had read that the plaintiff officially won and was awarded one dollar, but Ford won in the court of public opinion. He was forced to admit on the witness stand that he did not know, for example, when the American Revolution had occurred, suggesting it may have occurred in the nineteenth century rather than the eighteenth. The public thought the Jewish attorneys and the New York Times treated Mr. Ford unfairly.

However, I don't have a citation for this. If someone does, I think it could make a useful addition to this article. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, you're referring to (Aaron) Sapiro v. Ford, correct? That was the 1927 case. Ford had other suits for libel, both brought by him and brought against him, and I think you're conflating two trials. The Sapiro trial ended in a mistrial in the spring of 1927, with a new trial date set, but the retrial never came. Ford had already issued a public apology, which ultimately satisfied Sapiro. The case I think you're possibly mixing this up with ("awarded one dollar") is Ford v. The Tribune Co, a suit the Ford brought against the Chicago Tribune for calling him "an ignorant idealist" and an "anarchist." That case went in Ford's favor, and he was awarded 6 cents. Regardless, a pretty well documented and complete source is Baldwin's Henry Ford and the Jews which is already listed as a source in this article. You might start there. Butlerblog (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

George F. Green

@Snagemit: I mostly support your 2020-06-27T04:52:37 shortening of:

In June 1949, a 174-page, one-volume abridgement of the text appeared, titled The International Jew, subtitled "The World's Foremost Problem", edited by the British fascist journalist George F. Green (not to be confused with the novelist and short-story writer George F. Green), editor of the U.K. publication Independent Nationalist (not to be confused with the Irish Independent Nationalists).

to:

In June 1949, a 174-page, one-volume abridgement of the text appeared, titled The International Jew, subtitled "The World's Foremost Problem", edited by the journalist and fascist George F. Green who served as the editor of the Independent Nationalist.

However, I feel a need to preserve the text you deleted in the references. Accordingly, I've moved to a footnote the disambiguation comments that have been in the article at least since the first of this year; I didn't check further back than that. I think this gives us the benefit of making the article easier to read while still preserving the disambiguation comments.

Agreed? Thanks DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I do, but it the future, feel free to do so regarding any such changes without feeling the need to ask me. :)

Regards,Snagemit (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Boardwalk Empire?

@Hangulrover69: Can you please provide a reference for your "Popular culture" addition, claiming that, "This book appears in one of the episodes of Boardwalk Empire"?

I looked in the Wikipedia article on Boardwalk Empire and could not find "International Jew". I found references to Jewish gangsters, but that seems different.

I'm reverting your addition for lack of a source. If you have a credible reference, I would also like this addition to briefly outline the context: Very briefly, which character(s) discuss that book, what are their role(s) in the drama, and what do they say or suggest with their reference(s) to the book?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are the references. It only shows up briefly in one episode https://www.popisms.com//Book/63230/The-International-Jew-The-Worlds-Foremost-Problem-Henry-Ford-The-Internatio?from=https%3a%2f%2fwww.popisms.com%2fnodes%2fseriesnav%3fid%3d634841131657170000%26dir%3d-1 https://shopscreenbid.com/products/bwe200ntHangulrover69 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

current Arabic translation

I think we should restore the image of the Arabic translation as it is fairly recent, at least since 2001. I think that should be included in a new section, acknowledging that the book is still in active circulation, apparently still promoting the antisemetic tropes it did when it was written. I hope someone more knowledgeable about this than I am can do this. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're about a week late on the discussion to delete. Butlerblog (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: How was I supposed to know that discussion was even taking place? I've been "Watching" this page for some time and was completely unaware of this discussion.

Am I correct that the discussion there hinged on two points: That cover was NOT free, and the decision to delete was based primarily on the fact that it was NOT mentioned in the text?

If yes, that still leaves open the possibility of adding a brief section on "2001 republication in Arabic", describing whether it's still in print, and whether it includes any mention of the fact of the 1927 lawsuit that led Ford to close The Dearborn Independent.

I know someone fluent in Arabic who also claims Jewish ancestry. I can see if she is interested in researching the age of this translation and especially if it includes any discussion of how the book has been alleged to contribute to the rise of Nazism. If she is, I could probably help her with the syntax in creating an Arabic-language article on this book. If that is done, then we'd want to recreate an image of that book cover. And after an Arabic-language article on this book appeared, we could then add a section on that to this English-language article with a section title something like "2001 Arabic-language translation".

QUESTION: Do you know if Ford worked to suppress further publication of the book after he closed The Dearborn Independent? I thought I saw a claim to that effect, but now I can't find it. I'd like to have an answer to that question before I ask my Arabic-speaking friend about this.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What does the book actually say?

This article contains no description or synopsis of what is actually in the book — normally, a Wikipedia article about a book would contain a synopsis of what the book says, not just have a table of contents. Why isn't there a synopsis of the author's arguments? Mac Davis (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Listing of chapters

You're joking, right? 142.181.93.97 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We should discuss if it is DUE. The listing of chapters is half the length of this article. Is that allowable by WP:FRIND ("the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources"), WP:GEVAL, and WP:NOTDATABASE? Llll5032 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I propose that we mostly delete the "Contents" section and only name the four volumes instead. Short third-party descriptions could be included if DUE per WP:FRIND. Does anyone disagree? Llll5032 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

FRIND is applied to prevent a fringe view from being made too prominent in articles concerning something mainstream; it does not apply to this. If this were an ordinary book, I'd tend to agree (agree about considering removal, but for completely different reasons); but this is a compilation of a series of previously published articles, so the list is relevant. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I would agree with your reasoning if the articles were fewer, mentioned by RS, and listed inline. But I doubt that a list of this size is DUE, because not even the cited book-length RS appear to name or list all the component articles. The effect may be unintentionally PROFRINGE because many of the titles are written as assertions. Can the information be conveyed in another way, using less than half of this article? Llll5032 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I made formatting changes that reduce the prominence of the list, but I still think it is disproportionate/UNDUE. Llll5032 (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You WPians are messed up. What is a chapter title without a synopsis? Meaningless is what. I'm a commie, so I'm not the one upholding the legacy of Hitler's patron in Dearborn. Just sayin'. 142.181.93.97 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

A chapter title can speak for itself and I think these do. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Do third-party RS treat all 80 chapter titles as notable? Llll5032 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Notable applies to articles, also to lists of notable people, but not generally to content. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If the 80 chapter titles are rarely or never listed by a RS, then can a list of all 80 of them be WP:DUE? Llll5032 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Third-party inline source for chapter list unnecessary in current state

Tagging for a third-party independent source in the chapter list is unnecessary in the article's current state. Where the tag was placed, the statement After publication in the periodical, the articles were compiled into a four volume set as follows is already cited by two sources in the preceding section making further citation unnecessary (WP:REPCITE). I presume the intention of the tag, however, was for the information that follows (i.e. the chapter list). The chapters of a book are self-evident fact (WP:SELFSOURCE). This is not entering into commentary beyond basic synopsis. Refer to WP:WHEN - specifically If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information. This tagged section is well within those bounds. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE is allowed when "It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." But aren't there many claims in these chapter titles, which account for more than 80 lines of the article? Better third-party context would show if it is WP:DUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." Llll5032 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

These are simply titles of articles compiled in a work. This section of the article only declares their existence, not a legitimacy of their ideas. In fact, the article is pretty clear on the fact that the entire work is anti-semitic. There's a distinct difference between saying "This work contains a chapter called Jewish Copper Kings Reap Rich War-Profits" and stating "Jewish copper kings reap rich war profits" as an idea. The former is a statement of fact, while the latter is an idea that would likely be challenged and would have to be sourced. Don't read into it something that isn't there. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"See also" and "External links" repetition

We should limit the "See also" links section to Wikipedia articles (MOS:ALSO); and an external link to the subject published outside a Wikipedia article (including Wikisource) should be kept in references or the External links section, correct? Llll5032 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikisource does not apply as an EL. It can be used in "See Also".[2] ButlerBlog (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected. Llll5032 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)