Talk:Westbrook Pegler

Why was the MAD Magazine reference removed?

A parody of Pegler they published in the early 60's contained a made up quote which is sometimes atrributed to him. Try Googling the following phrase, and see:

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

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

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

Libel vs Slander

Note: The entry for Westbrook Pegler cites his being sued for slander by Quentin Reynolds; the entry for Reynolds v. Pegler cites libel. Suit was for libel (print), not slander (verbal).

Someone seems to have changed that. --NealMcB (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Philip Roth on Pegler's alleged Anti-semitism

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palins_source.html

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

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

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

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

A Neutral Interpretation of Pegler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of References

This entry is sorely lacking in footnotes and references for some of the more controversial things that Pegler has allegedly written and said. Are we simply to take the contributor's word for it that Pegler is responsible for everything that has been attributed to him? It also fails to acknowledge that Pegler often adopted a sarcastic tone in his writing, and at least on some occasions wrote his articles the voice of a crank in order to suggest mockery. All in all, I think this is a pretty shoddy job for an entry and nowhere near Wikipedia's standards. Jvward (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

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

Palion speech

It seems that this has been discussed above, but here goes again. This seems pretty scketchy and linked to a blog. Maybe if this recieves wide coverage and becomes something, maybe include in a year or two. Probably belongs in Palin speech article or the like it at all. --Tom 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added significantly more citations and readded it. Why do you say here and in your edit summary that it is linked to a blog? It previously was supported by two citations, one of those was a Time Magazine article (i.e. not a blog.) And yes, it does also belong in the Palin speech. --John Bahrain (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You have included some blogs as citations which I would rather not see, but I am not going to revert. Again, this seems pretty recent events type material that I don't really think belongs here but rather in a sub article on Palin if at all. Is there a citation that Pegler made the quote that is attributed to him in the speech? --Tom 17:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the quote was not attributed to him in the speech. There's little reason to think that the speech writer even knew who Pegler was, unless his leaving Pegler's name out was deliberate. -- Zsero (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it wasn't, but blogers are making the case that it belongs to him so here we are. --Tom 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

End of career

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