Talk:Stephen Samuel Wise

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sugihara[edit]

Japanese diplomat Sugihara offered Wise information regarding a faction/group of industrialists in the Japanese government who wanted Jewish settlers for Manchuria prior to the 2nd World War. Wise kicked Sugihara out of his office. Wise had more faith in the humanity of the US and UK (Christian Values). Ozdaren 11:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this information come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.88.253 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete a non objective line[edit]

"Like most reform Rabbis, it is not likely that he understood the Talmud on even an elementary level. " --YoavD 03:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classifiaction[edit]

With proper sourcing this is a B class article. The only source is an old encyclopedia from 1906, which would mean most of the lifetime of this person would not be covered by that text. Aboutmovies 05:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad to state that many positive, neutral changes have been made to this page over the last year and it is indeed now a B class article. A Sniper (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main part seems to be missing[edit]

I am no fan of Stephen Wise, but the article really should state a bit more about his ideas. How can you have an article about him without mentioning the Free Synagogue?

I ran into this while researching the article on the Young Israel movement, which was founded by opponents of Stephen Wise, both Orthodox and Reform. (The former include my grandparents.) Reading the article, you would never know what it was that aroused such strong opposition.

Michael Zvi Krumbein (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbatean?[edit]

Managing editor of Vanity Fair and later an Esquire contributor, Helen Lawrenson wrote of a sexual encounter with Wise in her 1975 book Stranger at the Party. She describes how Wise had sex with her in his office on his conference table, and "quoted the verse from Psalms which Sabbateans did when engaged in sexual intercourse." The incident is mentioned in a Time article from 1975 (citing Lawrenson) although the Sabbatean angle is not mentioned there. This is also retold in David Morrison's 1999 book Heroes, Antiheroes And The Holocaust on page 217. __meco (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead should say why this person is notable, and should include any notable controversy. As it's currently written, it doesn't explain why the article exists. SlimVirgin 20:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we could use some inline sources, if the people adding the material know where it came from. Most of the article is currently unsourced. SlimVirgin 05:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info and expand tags[edit]

This article lacks considerable notable content, particularly in the ‘Career and activism’ section concerning Wise’s long running quest for the success of Zionism. It does not note his, and AJ Cong’s, historic debate with the AJ Cmte, already included in the 1938 Time magazine ref. The article also does not mention Abba Hillel Silver’s ‘maximalist’ views so strongly opposed by Wise’s moderate approach, following the Biltmore Conference and the American Jewish Conference. This should particularly start in 1935 when Wise re-assumed Zionist leadership, following Brandeis’s “clash” with Weizmann and his previous withdrawal in 1921.

No one can say whether it is a matter of NPOV, or a half-truth restriction of an admittedly argumentative period, but notable, encyclopedic content is certainly missing in any case, per tags. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There exists no conspiracy to keep information from the page. If you feel so inclined as to place the tag, gladly fee free to add this information pyou feel is missing - like any editor would do for any page. And then please remove the tag. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founding NAACP date[edit]

Stephen Wise couldn't have been a founder of NAACP in 1912. The organization was founded in 1909. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidwConnelly (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kestenbaum story[edit]

I've moved the following paragraph here for discussion:

In April 2010, Orthodox rabbi Ephraim Kestenbaum was quoted as recounting that his father, David Kestenbaum, a rabbi who had worked to save European Jews during the Holocaust, had been urged by Wise through him (Ephraim) to reduce his pressure on the American government, and that Wise had told him " Tell your father that he has to be an American and not to fight hard for Jews in Europe. You have to be an American first." Kestenbaum stated his belief that, but for Wise’s actions, President Roosevelt would have done more to save Jews in Europe.<ref>Yair Alpert, [http://matzav.com/rabbi-kestenbaum-speaks-of-astounding-misdeeds-of-reform-rabbi-stephen-wise-during-holocaust "Rabbi Kestenbaum: Jews Died During Holocaust Because of Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise"], Matsav.com, April 14, 2010.</ref>

This paragraph raised a number of obvious questions:

  1. What makes http://matzav.com a reliable source?
  2. Why would we care what Ephraim Kestenbaum says about Wise? Is his opinion notable in any way?

Please answer these questions. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1) this site is used as a source in at least 25 other pages, so 25 other people deemed it a good source!! So I don’t see why just now this site became a problem.
On point 2) the point is not about “Ephraim Kestenbaum” but rather that we now have a first hand witness to a story that until now was only alleged!! So it’s not “his” opinion rather an affirmation by a firsthand source on an opinion of other writers who are indeed notable!
Bloger (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding matzav.com being used elsewhere, that's not really an indication that it's a reliable source. What it would need to be considered as such would be a reputation for strong editorial oversight. Regarding the second, it's an allegation made 70 years after the events, and it's still unclear why this is a significant source or point. Rather than relying on a primary source quoted on a website of dubious reliability, do we have reliable secondary sources that indicate that this point is important? Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although true “matzav.com being used elsewhere” is not a determining factor in proving it to be reliable source, it being used elsewhere with no apposition, and being apposed here, in this particular instance, does raise a concern.
And how exactly does one determine “reputation for strong editorial oversight” this site is a pretty popular site for the kinds of people it caters to, and is regularly linked to by a large number of sites, so I think it cannot be dismissed as unworthy, or as you put it “a website of dubious reliability”.
Now regarding the “70 year after the events” argument, I hope you don’t mean that literally! I mean how is the testimony against John Demjanjuk “a significant source or point” “70 year after the events”? Is a crime less of a crime since the witness came forward “70 year after the events”? Rudolf Kastner’s name was cleared after his death, why can Wise not be accused after his death?
The argument around Wise, has gone on now for all the years since the middle of the war, he was alleged to have neglected to help the Jews in peril by several writers and historians, and until now all there was, were the opinions of the said writers and historians, and now there is a firsthand witness to a substantial historical fact, why do we need “secondary sources that indicate that this point is important” do we need “secondary sources indicating that “oxygen is essential to life” is an important point ? The implications of the allegation that Wise – a supposed important figure in Jewish interest – would so betray his people because of political interest stand for itself, and we don’t need “secondary sources” to proof the obvious!
And I hope this also satisfies, why this is “significant point”!!
Bloger (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a section at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about matzav.com, so we'll get the answer to that there. Regarding the rest, I already explained what would make this point significant; do reliable secondary sources refer to Kestenbaum's views, for example? Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do reliable secondary sources refer to Kestenbaum's views, for example? Read the article under “Criticism of Wise” several “reliable secondary” refer the idea about which Kestenbaum spoke .
Bloger (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, reliable secondary sources don't refer to Kestenbaum's views. Also, per RS/N, the source itself is inappropriate. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation date of World Jewish Congress[edit]

How comes the date is provided to be in August 1936? Was it not the case that conference in geneva was held in September 1933, straight after 18 Zionist Congress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.88.253 (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stephen Samuel Wise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephen Samuel Wise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Samuel_Wise&oldid=1210980647"