Talk:Charles Coughlin/Archive 1

The Irish link ought to point to Irish_diaspora. Franzeska 23:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't sound too much like an encyclopedia article. Its not a good idea to ask the reader make a judgment based on one letter without knowing the context or even the accuracy.

Roadrunner 21:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The letter below proves that any accusation of "antisemitism" is false. It is not even anti-Judaism or anti-rabbinism, but in fact Fr. Coughlin very much recognizes that Jesus was Jewish, and that racism is false and wrong. He criticizes certain naturalistic tendencies among modern-day Jews. He does not call for "extermination" of Jewish "blood and race" anywere. On the contrary. He says one must choose the Jew Jesus!Smith2006 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you nuts? The letter drips with bigotry. Are you saying that Coughlin can't be accused of antisemitism because antisemitism is JUSTIFIED? That's hardly NPOV. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Below is a letter from Fr. Coughlin, from this author's collection. Readers are left to their own judgement of him.

February 2, 1940

H. B. Knape
Flushing, L. I., N. Y.

My dear Friend,

I am sending you accompanying this letter a copy of the "Rulers of Russia".

Undoubtedly you will derive much information from this scholarly work written by the Reverend Denis Fahey.

Having read the book, do not conclude that Jews are to be hated or that good Christians can be anti-Semitic, but recollect that, as Rabbi Samuel H. Goldenson of Temple Emanu-El, New York City has said: "Lack of faith on the part of the Jews, rather than anti-Semitism is the most serious problem facing Jewry today."

While it is regrettable that Jews are persecuted abroad, let us not condone any persecution of them at home. Moreover, let us try our level best to persuade the better class of Jews to cooperate with the better class of Gentiles in coming out publicly and courageously against all forms of irreligion and persecution.

Finally, let it be no shock to learn that the Oriental Freemasons, who operate particularly in Europe, are atheistic and are dominated by atheistic Jews and Gentiles.

There is no salvation for America without God. We are at the crossroads where we must accept either the Jew, Jesus Christ, or the Jew, Carl Marx.

Trusting that you will derive benefit from the weekly contents of SOCIAL JUSTICE magazine which are definitely pro-Christian and pro-American, I am

Cordially yours,

Charles E. Coughlin

ok, this revert war has got to stop. NYCExpat, I belive your edits are wrong. Caughlin was definately anti-semitic (Regardless of what this letter here says), and he was also a nativist (As per encarta). so please Try to cooperate here and back up your edits with NPOV sources. Bonus Onus 20:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Bonus Onus, I have to agree with you, and I would also urge NYCEXpat to avoid using misleading edit summaries. He keeps removing points about antisemtism, etc. while stating that he is dealing with other issues, which just complicates the editing process more. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The issue of whether someone is or is not "nativist" or "anti-semitic" begs the question as to what these terms mean, what is the burden of proof, and who makes the judgement. The notion that an immigrant priest who opposed the KKK could be a "nativist" is absurd, regardless of what is in encarta. (Hey maybe the encarta people referred to this Wikipedia site)

The issue of whether or not someone supports the policies of Hitler and Mussolini similarly depends upon what we mean by "support" and "policies". Did Coughlin support the Holocaust, the VW or none of the above? What exists here is somebody's diatribe.

Coughlin was a major figure in the Thirties because he proposed an alternative to the New Deal that was neither right or left. His publication of the Protocols and other alleged anti-semitic acts constitute a very small part of what he was about. Amazingly, he is still a controversial figure who is reviled at every opportunity. That makes him even more interesting.

So, I will continue to monitor and edit this site until it reflects the objective truth about this man.

Facts do matter, and you have yet to provide sources, which makes your insertions suspect, especially as you clearly have a strong point of view. For example, your latest edit, that there was no Communist Party in the US in the thirties, was just plain wrong: (From the Columbia Encyclopedia:"In May, 1921, under strong pressure from the Third (Communist) International, or Comintern, the Communist groups in the United States were united as the Communist Party of America. The Comintern also forced a change away from revolutionary militancy to working through established labor organizations and developing a mass following. Accordingly, in Dec., 1921, the Communists organized the Workers party of America, as a legal, acknowledged organization, and by 1923 the underground party had ceased to function... in 1929 the party was renamed the Communist party of the United States of America."

Wikipedia has a policy against original research for exactly this reason - assertions are often wrong, and they certainly reflect point-of-view biases. Quality sourced material allows us to avoid wars over random assertions. Every source and biography on Coughlin mentions that he was increasingly anti-semitic after 1936, deleting that information (as you have done repeatedly, often with misleading change descriptions) is both dishonest and incorrect. If you want to expand the article to include more information about his early life or economic policies, go ahead. Just make sure that it is supported by reputable outside sources, and give those sources, either in Talk or in a reference section.

--Goodoldpolonius2 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a biased statement:

"the New Dealers who practised central planning and democratic socialism and the far left."

I think it is a bit over the top (and a personal opinion) to say that the new deal was central planning, socialism or of the far left. Perhaps it is possible to re-word this statement to provide the facts or even better link to the new deal page, instead of editorializing about it here.--Fluxaviator 06:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The New Deal was an experiment in central planning and democratic socialism. What did the blue eagle of the NRA stand for? What is the big deal in admitting this simple fact? The far left stood for one form of Communism or another, Trotsky or Stalin. The far left stood for the total expropriation of private property and the elimation of civil liberties. This was Communism in any form. There may have been New Dealers who were Communists, but the New Deal was not Communism. The New Deal was a valiant but inept attempt to deal with the crisis of the Great Depression.

Mr. Gdps asserts that I have claimed that the CPUSA did not exist in the Thirties. That is based either on a misreading of what I wrote, or a typo on my part. I believed that I wrote "The CPUSA did not exist in the Thirties?" as a question, not an assertion of fact. Of course the CPUSA existed in the Thirties.

NYC Expat

a large amount of the New Deal was just a watered down attempt to copy what the Germans and Italians were doing so successfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talk • contribs)

Cite? JChap2007 01:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

When I came upon this site my knowledge of Rev. Coughlin was based on a long-ago reading of Sheldon Marcus's book, an old copy of "Money, Questions and Answers" and general knowledge of Thirties America. I am now reading Donald Warren's book. First, GDPS misnames the book. It's actual title is "Radio Priest", and it is subtitled "Charles Coughlin the Father of Hate Radio". The book is a biased and sloppy history written by a sociologist. The subtitle is a giveaway. I assume it was chosen in order to attract a market in the post-Oklahoma bombing period when the book came out. The link to contemporary "hate radio" - whatever that is - (Rush?) is non-existent. Nevertheless the book contains some nuggets. The best yet was the relevation that the breach between Rev. Coughlin and FDR was not over the unsuccessful New Deal. It occurred on September 10, 1935, when he confronted FDR with evidence that the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, FDR's friend, neighbor, and the most prominient Jew in the administration, had sent money to the Mexican Communist Party. (pps. 86-69). NYCity Expat 04:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the status on this page? it's been protected for nearly a month. Most admins will not let a page stay protected for over a month. --Woohookitty 01:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The Rev. Charles Coughlin is an important and controversial figure from the Twenties through the early Forties. He was gifted speaker who stepped into radio in its early days and became a star. In the beginning his broadcasts were mostly religious. After America entered the Great Depression they turned to economic and political issues.

There are many theories about how the Depression was caused, why it continued, and how it could be solved. The Republicans, led by Hoover, believed in laissez-faire ecomics. The Communists believed in central planning and the abolition of private property. The New Dealers believed in a larger government, central planning, and spending to prime the pump. (Thus the New Deal led to the creation of the NRA, the WPA, the SEC, Social Security, the CCC and many other similar agencies.) The Reverend asserted that the Depression was a cash famine and that the New Deal would not succeed because it failed to strike at the fundametal cause of the problem, which was the existence of the central bank (the Federal Reserve) itself. He asserted that the Fed's very existence prevented the government from creating sufficient money by whatever means to prime the pump enough to make the water run on its own.

Thus, Coughlin gained enemies across the political spectrum, but he remained popular.

The early Twenties and Thirties was more then flappers, Prohibition and the Depression. The Communists were on the march. They were unihibited in the use of violence, and they hated Christianity. The Orthodox Christian clergy were massacered wholesale by the Bolsheviks. Wherever the Reds were strong Christians suffered.

So, when Coughlin discovered that one of FDR's closest advisors, cabinet member Henry Morgenthau, had sent money to the Mexican Communist Party he confronted FDR. Apparently he was not impressed with the response, and then broke with the President.

Thus, Coughlin gained more enemies, but he remained popular. When the Spanish Civil War broke out, Christians were once again massacred wholesale by the Reds. It should be noted here that the killing of the religious was not opposed by the Left here, including politically involved Jews. There were no defections from supporters of "Republican" Spain because of human rights violations.

Despite the New Deal, the Depression continued throughout the Thirties. 1937 was as bad as 1933. Folks began to loose faith in Roosevelt and the attraction of Communism here grew as the Depression continued.

The priest was a committed anti-Communist, even on the streets of New York, and he gained more enemies.

By the end of the Thirties it became obvious that the Democratic administration was intent on opposing Nazi Germany by any means, including a possible World War. Coughlin, like Lindbergh and most other Americans, opposed the future war. When the Jews complained about the Kristallnacht pogrom, Coughlin, and many others wondered why they didn't complain about the Communists anti-Christian pogroms.

In our time most folks see the Second World War as a necessary tragedy that prevented Hitler from conquering the world and killing all the Jews. Maybe that is true. Perhaps a series of events took place that are much more complex, and that the end result was not a necessary conclusion. Furthermore, perhaps FDR's, Churchill's, and Stalin's policies contributed to that horrendus dance of death, and that none of it was even forseeable, or possibly even likely, from before the beginning when Couglin and Lindbergh took their stands.

Nevertheless, Father Coughlin gained more enemies.

The priest was forced off the air in the fall of 1939. His publication was shut down in 1942. Despite all the accusations of sedition and incitements of criminality, he was never charged - even by his hostile enemies who were in power - with any crime.

He remained a parish priest until his retirement.

Now we must take a good look the entry here.

First of all, the title. The man was an ordained minister, and therefore is entitled to the honorific "Reverend". He is not here.

At the end, for sources, the book by Donald Warren is misidentified. It's true title is not "Father Coughlin the Father of Hate Radio". That is its subtitle. It's true title is Radio Priest. The nuance displays bias which is indeed present.

The article fails to represent the actual cause of Coughlin's breach with FDR.

The article states that his listeners were "nativists". In actuality, the KKK, a classic "nativist" organization, opposed Catholics at that time, and the Catholics, including Coughlin, would have opposed them.

The author goes on to state that Coughlin expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini. This is a deeply prejudicial statement that is not supported by the record. What policies is he talking about? Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler built the Volkswagen.

How much control did the priest have over his "followers" who supposedly stated "Wait until Hitler comes over here"?

Finally, if Father Coughlin was never charged with any crime, including sedition, why is the data concerning rightist radicals present?

What we have here is a diatribe and not a biography. The author insists upon the content he wants, and I disagree.

There may be no agreement.

So, perhaps this site should be perpetually locked down.

NYCity Expat 05:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

THOUGHTS ON THE MORGENTHAU CHECK

I was stunned to come across this story. It is mentioned by both Marcus and Warren. When I read Marcus's book long ago the matter had not stood out, but it does now. The incident raises several issues. How large a check was it? Did Morgenthau send the money on his own, or did he do it at the President's direction? The Marcus book contains a Coughlin quote on pages 99 & 100 that indicate that Morgenthau did it on his own and that this indicated "how far the Communists had infiltrated our government." Indeed it did. Neither book indicates the size of the check, but I bet that Coughlin told Marcus - and that Marcus told Warren - and that both writers avoided writing the amount of money involved. The issue is inflamatory, so inflamatory that both writers (neither of which like the priest) mention the incident but neither give the issue the attention it deserves.

The next issue is how the check came to Coughlin, and why.

Both books indicate that he got it from his bishop. An action like that does not just happen. Such a check doen not just happen to fall into the hands of the Catholic leadership.

Clearly, the leadership had Coughlin confront the President. At that time Coughlin was powerful supporter of the President. FDR's coalition contained a lot of Catholics who listed to the radio priest. I imagine that the Church wanted to know whether supporting the Communists was an official and secret policy of the administration, and if not, what would happen to the rogue Communist-supporting Treasury Secretary. The priest and the president spent 7 hours together. Morgenthau remained in office, and Coughlin launched his third party.

The fact that a wealthy Jewish plutocrat and cabinet member could support the Reds and still remain in office after being exposed must have provoked a great deal of thought.

24.149.41.40 03:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:Woohookitty (writing nearly a week ago!) that the page has been protected for far too long. It's a wiki, time to let people edit it again. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There is some disagreement over exactly when and how the reverend was forced off the air. Both Marcus and Warren mention the NAB censorship. However stations were permitted to honor their contracts and some did. As a result fixing a precise date of when he lost his major stations - and their audiences - or made a final broadcast to the last remnant of stations is difficult.

NYCity Expat 12:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What considerations should apply regarding what is written here or anywhere else on Wikipedia?

Should the contents of this page be merely what I or someone else wants, while each of us deny that our POV is being expressed?

Here are some thoughts. First consider that this is a short biography, and thus it needs to be succint.

The rules of evidence control what a jury hears in the courtroom, and they are important because the keep junk from polluting the minds of the jurors.

Here are a few rules:

1. Is the information relevant? Does it have probative value?

2. Is it material? Does it have some logical bearing on the subject?

3. Is it hearsay?

4. Is it conclusory?

5. Is it opinion?

6. Does it assume facts not in evidence?

7. Does it misstate evidence or misquote witnesses?

8. Is it speculative?

9. Is it confusing, misleading, ambiguous, or vague?

10. Does prejudice outweigh probativeness?

There are of course other possible obejctions but these few should give a reader tools to analyze what is written here and elsewhere.

Today I am going to remove the section that Coughlin sympathized with Nazism because it is conclusory, an opinion, it assumes facts that are not before us, it is speculative, confusing, misleading and vague, and because the prejudice created by the comment far outweighs the probative value of the remark.

NYCity Expat 04:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And yet you filled the page with your own conclusions, opinions, and claims, which also assumed facts not before us, was speculative, confusing, misleading and vague etc. Why don't you try your apologetics, err, edits on the Talk: page first. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

In the section "Growing anti-Semitism and radicalism," there is a quote ascribed to Herbert Hoover. As this appears in a paragraph concerning the FBI, I suspect that the actual source was not ex-President Herbert Hoover, but J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. B00P 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting the gratuitous Goebbels reference. We need to avoid language that runs along the lines of "Hitler liked dogs. Bill likes dogs. Therefore, Bill is a fascist." St. Jimmy 12:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• It's not making a statement it's just making a correlation with Nazi Germany and provides additional info. I thought that it was a great sentence.

71.131.185.95 18:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well of course it's a "correlation." The question is what sort of correlation. If someone said, "Like Jeffrey Dahmer, Bill has homosexual tendencies" that would obviously be a scurrilous way of attacking Bill, not a means of giving information. I assure you that Goebbels and Coughlin were not the only two people in the world who noticed that irreligion, especially of the Marxist variety, was more common among Jews than among Gentiles at the time. If you have a source for the allegation that he reduced that observation to the words "Jewish plot", I will reconsider whether restoring a version of the sentence might be appropriate. St. Jimmy 15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The line about Coughlin's allies attacking Jewish Communist targets is not POV, it is either a fact or not a fact. If the targets were both Jewish and Communist and were selected for that reason, talking about "perceptions" is silly. As for why the Goebbels analogy is inappropriate, that's already been discussed. St. Jimmy 02:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you about Coughlins allies attacking Jewish Communist targets and I changed it. It definitely was a POV of the Christian front and it can not be substantiated. I didnt realize it at first but once I did I changed it. For Goebbels I think it is a great sentence and should be included. This one sentence really explains a lot about Coughlin and his viewpoint. I believe that it explains why Coughlin, as a preacher, expressed sympathy for Nazi policies and why he would be anti semetic. There is a big hole in the article and there is really no connection on how a preacher would support Hitler and this sentence shows why someone like him would. The whole anti semetism part doesnt show Coughlings viewpoint and it's one sided. It just talks about him being anti semetic but doesnt tell why. Keep in mind it's only his viewpoint we are including and that is all. It's not stating it as a fact.

Jerry Jones 03:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the "Jewish plot" thing? Because if Coughlin merely stated that many Jews were leading society in the direction of atheism and Marxism, that is no more than what a lot of people on the right were saying at the time, and the line associating him with Goebbels would be scurrilous. Of course, maybe he really did use the exact words "Jewish plot" or "Jewish conspiracy", in which case the disputed line would have credibility. I would like to see some facts brought forward on this point. St. Jimmy 02:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

St Jimmy, you said in your edit summary for this edit that the "citation says nothing about Goebbels or "Marxist atheism in Europe". Was this citation the one you meant? If so, half of your claim seems to be false, since the cited page quotes Roy Carlson as writing that "He [Coughlin] made direct use of Goebbels’ speeches, quoting the Nazi almost word-for-word". So it is not scurrilous of us to associate him with Goebbels, although perhaps it would be more clearly NPOV for us to attribute this to Carlson. I agree this citation doesn't specifically mention "Marxist atheism in Europe". -- Avenue 09:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That was Jay that had that edit summary, not me. I concur that if the Goebbels reference is used is has to be attributed to Carlson and balanced by pointing out that the view of Jews as tending to be nonreligious and sympathetic to communism was common on the non-Nazi right, otherwise it is thoroughly POV. St. Jimmy 07:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to you both for being confused about who said what. -- Avenue 09:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Added reference to Coughlin's attacks on Jewish Bankers and sourced to NYT. This seems like a good addition because it is the one thing that most people learn about him and his (in my view demented) beliefs in this regard may explain his broader anti-Semitism. --JChap 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He didn't like Capitalism? was he a socialist?

A type of socialist, yes. St. Jimmy 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A "national socialist," one might argue. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Coughlin an exception to the normal MOS rules since he was known colloquially as "Father Coughlin"? JoshuaZ 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone else aware of the information just added by an anon? Does anyone have a citation for it? The anon added "In a unpublished letter to H. B. Knape, Coughlin regretted persecution of the Jews at home and abroad. He believed that the Oriental Freemasons from Europe were dominated by atheistic Jews and Gentiles and wanted to come out against all forms of irreligion and persecution. Coughlin further believed that there was no salvation for America without God, and people were at a the crossroads were they must accept either, "the Jew, Jesus Christ, or the Jew, Carl Marx."" JoshuaZ 00:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That "anon" is user:Jerry Jones/User:JJstroker, who was banned for a number of reasons. This article is a favorite of his. That particular text has been removed several times, but he keeps re-adding it. -Will Beback 04:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But Coughlin's biggest enemy was the FDR administration. They didn't want a popular radio announcer campaigning against them every week during the run up to the war. They decided that although the first amendment protected free speech, it did not necessarily apply to broadcasting, because the radio spectrum was a "limited national resource." New regulations and restrictions were created to force Coughlin off the air. For the first time, operating permits were required of those who were regular radio broadcasters. When Coughlin's permit was denied, he was silenced... for a time.

But Coughlin didn't give up without a fight. He worked around the restriction by purchasing air time and having his speeches played via record. However, having to buy the time on individual stations seriously reduced his reach and strained his resources. And while Coughlin's voice grew dimmer, the voices of his critics grew louder.

Anyone want to make it a little less 'Rah Rah? Carptrash 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the whole "silenced" section is not very encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.59.32.115 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I cleaned up the references, and added a reference where there'd been a cite-fact tag. However, most of the in-line citations do not appear in the references (and should). Almost none of the references are used as in-line citations (and should be). And some of the references are done in APA style (e.g., "(Boyea, 1995)") when they should be in-line. Cleaning up the references and adding in-line citations might help resolve some of the POV and other issues mentioned on the talk page here. - Tim1965 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Unitarianism is mentioned, these links should be here, @ least, if not on the primary page:

• universalism
• universal reconciliation
• Unitarian-Universalism
• agnosticism
• ignosticism

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The following passages were added to the article by anon 60.240.209.54, followed by the rebuttal from Jxmunro (talk · contribs), neither of which should be included in their current form. Since it seems to be controversial, let's develop a consensus here about what parts of this are needed before restoring any of it to the article, please. -- Avenue (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite criticism of his methods Fr Coughlin still has his defenders in Catholic Traditional church people in Australia. Fr John George, a retired priest in Sydney Australia, on the True Catholic discussion board [1] A traditionalist Tim (really Michael Webb) has this to say [2]:-

Others in Australian Catholicism take a different view of Father Coughlin .

Cliff Baxter, the Australian Catholic Journalist, writes in Catholica:

[3]

There is no doubt that the astounding popularity of Father Coughlin

with Irish Catholics in the United States was due to his honest

outrage over the betrayal of the American worker. While industrialists

grew rich the workers starved. Unlike Marxists, however, he did not

blame the ruling class, but concentrated upon blaming the Jews. He

also criticised the Jews for failing to oppose communism rigorously.

This mindset resonated with American working people who were seeking

the perpetrators of their plight.

Father Coughlin's philosophy also appealed to American isolationism.

The Marxists had said war was the working class of one nation killing

the working class of another. Father Coughlin was determined to keep

Americans out of a future war. We need to realise that the slaughter

of the working class in World War I over Britain's imperial interests

remained a vivid memory for many families who had lost sons in that

gigantic conflict.

This enormous grief was not confined to America. In Australia there

had been the successful anti-conscription campaign in WWI led by

Archbishop Daniel Mannix of Melbourne.

Father Coughlin's immensely popular broadcasts had a special appeal to

the huge isolationist, anti-war movement of the USA. So powerful was

it that President Roosevelt had to provide only sub rosa help to

Britain in response to Winston Churchill's appeals.. Only Pearl

Harbour brought America into World War II.

If we can accept Father Coughlin as being of good intent we also need

to recognize his terrible mistakes. His philosophy and world view

fitted perfectly with Hitler's Nazis. His tirades against President

Roosevelt's New Deal as some kind of Bolshevism must have been like

manna to the Nazis, as were his "Jewish conspiracy" theories.

The history of anti-Semitism in the United States is a long one,

despite the fact that Jews fought both for American independence and

for Abraham Lincoln and the Union in the Civil War. .Today's

pro-Israel, pro-Zionist lobby in Washington can to some extent be

traced as a reaction to this antiJewishness.

Aside from his misplaced "blame the Jews for our woes " tirades,

Father Coughlin misread the new Nazi Germany. Like so many of his time

(including many in Britain) he saw it as a young, vigorous bulwark

against Soviet Communism, which he saw as being either promoted or not

effectively opposed by Jews. (Remember, Jews were still regarded as

Christ-killers who stubbornly refused to accept Christ as Savior.)

Father Coughlin was not alone. The Sydney Morning Herald in an

editorial saw Kristallnacht as merely "youthful excesses" in the young

Germany.

Hindsight is a great thing and we need to be fair to Father Coughlin,

although there remains the image of a pro-Nazi demagogue. Perhaps a

Catholic dupe is fairer.

Father Coughlin is still a fascinating figure.

"Fr Charles Coughlin was a good priest who had the interests of workers at heart. Sadly in North America, particuarly the USA, the Americanist heresy was rife and poor Fr Charles had many opponents.

In Canada workers had more rights and wins in the workplace. The USA was a difficult battle ground for social doctrinally aware Fr Coughlin."

IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND SCHOLARLY INTEGRITY

1 I AM WRONGLY INTERPRETED TO BY CLIFF BAXTER BELOW-I REV FATHER JOHN GEORGE AM NOT AN ADMIRER OF FATHER COUGHLIN OR ANY NAZI SYMPATHIZER LET ALONE ANTI SEMITE-THAT DOES NOT IMPEDE ME FROM NOTING ACADEMICALLY SOME GOOD THAT MAY BE DONE UNDER PRO NAZI ELEMENTS[EG I HAPPEN TO RECOGNISE UNDER PETAIN IN VICHY FRANCE THE HOSPITALITY OFFERED TO THE CHURCH AFTER DECADES OF REPRESSION, BY THE THIRD REPUBLIC-I RECOGNISE THE POSSIBILITY FOR GOOD IN THE VATICAN-THIRD REICH CONCORDAT WHEREBY AS TESTIFIED AT THE NUREMBERG WAR TRIALS POPE PIUS X11 SENT OFFICIAL COMPLAINTS TO HITLER RE TREATMENT OF JEWS AND ABUSE OF CONCORDAT RE PERSECUTION OF CHURCH UNDER THITRD REICH-I ALSO RECOGNISE THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS OF THE LATERAN PACT MADE WITH FASCIST MUSSOLINI[REGULATING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VATICAN AND ITALY BOTH CONCORDATS STILL STAND EG AND IN VIRTUE OF THE 3RD REICH CONCORDAT STILL EFFECTIVE, HOLY SEE WAS ABLE TO REMOVE HANS KUNG FROM TUBINGEN AS CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN-I REGARD THAT AS AN EXCELLENT SIDE EFFECT-TO DEDUCE FROM THE ABOVE I AM ANTI SEMITIC OR GOD FORBID AN ADMIRER OF FR COUGHLIN IS OUTRAGEOUS AND LIBELLOUS-I SIMPLY MENTIONED HE WAS SEEN BY SOME AS A GOOD PRIEST SAYING MASS-VISITING THE SICK AND POOR AND SPEAKING UP FOR THE UNDERDOG

I SUGGEST YOU VET VERY CLOSELY THE EDITING OF JOURNO MR BAXTER IN FUTURE-I REGARD HIS GRATUITOUS COMMENTS AS AT BESTNEAR LIBELLOUS!Jxmunro (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)~

Father Coughlin also ministered to Jewish Catholics a lot. A fact unknown to many. To some ideologians however, conversion of Jews to Christianity is "antisemitic". They even make anti-Semites out of Sister Teresa Benedicta a Cruce (Edith Stein, born in Breslau) and Father Maksymilian Kolbe M.I. (who paid with his life for his hiding 3,000 Jews - and he was a critic of certain tendencies among Jews too). You cannot talk with biased ideologians of the Goldhagen and John Cornwell brands. Like Nazi historians, these only pursue political goals (e.g. destruction of traditional Catholicism, payings by the German state to Israel), not the search for historical objective truth. I guess the Supreme Rabbi of Rome, Israel (Eugenio) Zoller, was also an antisemite, as he converted to Christianity in July, 1945? Some people do not distinguish between criticism of certain Jewish behaviour (and I would never oppose criticism of whites' behaviour or of Western European policies!) and racism called antisemitism.Smith2006 (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Father Charles Coughlin hosted a popular radio show in the 1930s in the U.S. The show was eventually taken off the air due to anti-semitic remarks by Coughlin. He has been called "antisemitic" by a large number of sources, both inside the Catholic Church and out. (See above sectiosns: #Antisemitism? No and #Antisemitisim? Yes for a list of sources.) A third-party, reliable source has even noted a campaign to remove this material from the article. On the other side, an editor has found a letter from the subject in an obscure publication from 50 years ago that says good Christians cannot be anti-semitic. The question here is: shall this article be included in Category:Antisemitism? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that we not only keep the category, but since a published book has referred to it, report the campaign to remove the category from this very article. BillMasen (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism is for articles that discuss antisemitism in some way. This article surely does. The lead of the category states in big, bold type:

This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are antisemitic.

Since the article obviously discusses antisemitism, the Category belongs. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted by Jayjg, the category is for articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. this article fits very well, and thus clearly belongs to the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The only way to justify taking this article out of the category would be the elimination of said category. No question the category is appropriate. IronDuke 15:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This article firmly belongs in the category. Doug Weller (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Father Charles Coughlin was nót an antisemite, as he never attacked the Jewish blood or race. The fact that he criticized sociologically described tendencies among certain groups of Jews, does not mean that this priest adhered to the Nazi hate myth of Blood and Race. Not at all. Also, I do not see how this can be part of the Wiki Judaism project, as Coughlin criticized the Talmud and Kabbalah and other less positive aspects of modern Rabbinic Judaism (which has little in common with original Temple Judaism of the High Priests and even original Pharisees' schools; as papal Knight David L. Goldstein proved, the famous convert from Rabbinism to the acceptance of the Messiah Jesus), only at few instances. Coughlin was a political speaker, not a race theoreticist. So please leave the "Antisemitism" Category out and invent a new category for e.g. "Critics of certain Jewish persons". Coughlin never blamed "all Jews" or "the Jewish race" for marxism or the excesses of usurious capitalism, did he? If so, provide quotes. I think the random accusations of "antisemitism" levelled against politically incorrect speakers like Coughlin, make a partisan word out of "antisemitism". This does no good, as the real racist and lethal hater-antisemites are no longer clearly identified, but thrown upon one dung heap along with mere political critics such as Coughlin. Also the connection of antisemitism with Catholicism is unscientific, motivated by anti-Christian and anti-Catholic bias, and not based on history. The fact that the popes in the past by the bulls like Et si Judaeis protected the Jews from angry anti-Jewish European populations, says all. It also proves, that antisemitism is a sociologically developed complex problem and certainly may never be blamed upon Christianity, such as hate propagandists Daniel Goldhagen *yes, the one also alleging all Germans are predestined mass murderers) and Costa try to do. Racism but also anti-Catholic bias, do not much good to society and world harmony at all. They certainly do not belong in an encyclopedia.Smith2006 (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are making argument based on original research, which is not acceptable for this encyclopedia. We have numerous sources that categorize the subject as an "anti-semite". More than that, he is a famous example of an anti-semite. When a person repeatedly refers to "the Jews" he isn't referring to certain Jewish persons, unless he subsequently names them. If you have reliable sources that say he wasn't anti-semitic we can include those as a minority viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Original research is not acceptable for this encyclopedia? What are you talking about? Only Propagandistic anti-Christian anti-Catholic demonization from certain Jewish lobby groups is allowed then? As for the use of "the Jews", Father Coughlin did not use the word (give sources) in that sense, while the Gospels do speak about "the Jews". And they were written by Jews. I guess the Gospels in the views of the vocal and powerful minority of anti-Christian hatred sowers should also be banned for "antisemitism" then?Smith2006 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Roosevelt wasn't Jewish. Do you have a reliable source that syas Coughlin was not anti-semitic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. The idea that Coughlin is being "demonized" and that such demonization is coming solely from anti-Catholic Jewish lobby groups is risible. I seriously doubt that Coughlin's bishop was part of a secret Jewish conspiracy. Even simply reading the article will find numerous sourced quotations where Coughlin used "the Jews." I do not see the article trying to blame anti-Semitism on Christianity or on Catholicism specifically. It does, however, present well-documented historical facts about Coughlin, however difficult those facts may be for some to accept. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As above, to remove the category on the basis of this letter is OR, because the letter is a primary source, and not a reliable secondary source.

Why no original research? In this particular case: to be a jew-hater was considered a bad thing and it is no wonder he wanted to distance himself from them. However, just because he said he wasn't one, that doesn't make it true. I bet I could find a quote from Hitler saying that he was a champion of Christianity. Should the cat "christian apologist" be stuck on his article? Stalin said he wasn't a totalitarian. Should that cat be removed? Jew-hate has been driven underground for many years, and it is rare to find someone who admits to it. If we restricted it to those who said "I am an antisemite", the cat would be very small indeed. This is why "criticising tendencies among some of them" is still often considered as hidden prejudice. I mean, not all Marxists are Jews. If he wanted to bash Marxists, why couldn't he just say Marxists? Why is the Jewish component important at all?

Coughlin saw the naturalism and materialism among Jews who had after 2000 years of rabbinism and Talmudic denial of the Messiah, lost supernatural faith, and saw these influences in Marxism. That does not say he did not attack goyim for their apostasy and later decadence and materialism either. Nor did Coughlin attack the Orthodox Rabbis of New York for instance. In fact, he somewhat cooperated with them and quoted them himself. Something an "antisemite" in the true sense of the word would never do. There is no proof that Coughlin hated Jews, and not at all that he hated Jews for blood or their race or their ancestors. On the contrary. Labelling this priest an antisemite lends a hand to anti-Catholic new prejudice, and also makes the real antisemites feel like partisans among other people who are not politically correct. I admit Father Coughlin could have spoken wiser at times, and I do not say he was a saint per se, but not an antisemite either. The latter claim is ridiculous.Smith2006 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler hated Christianity and hated the Catholic Church he left as a boy because he thought the Popes and the "Church of the Jew Paul of Tarsus and Peter" were "from Jewry". In fact, Hitler was a deist, with theologically liberal and occultistic views. You cannot find a quote from Hitler praising Christianity.Smith2006 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what you need to do is find a reliable secondary source which says he wasn't an antisemite, and then we can just have "alleged antisemite" or something. On the strength of this letter you've presented, the best you can do is say "Coughin said that he was not an anti-semite... yadda yadda". BillMasen (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism is hatred of Jews for their race and blood, their descendance. Coughlin clearly was no antisemite therefore. One could call him anti-rabbinic, or a Critic of post-Temple Jewry, or a Critic of post-Jamnia Judaism, or a Critic of certain jewish groups and their behaviour before and after the Modern Era's assimilation. But not "antisemite". If Coughlin was an antisemite, then Saint Paul himself was one too. Saint Paul was himself from a Pharisaic Jewish family, and yet said "the Jews are enemies as to the Gospel". But that is criticism of the Jews, not antisemitism not hatred of a "race", ethnicity or blood.Smith2006 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No Smith. You just give us your private opinion yet again, backed up by nothing more than your personal impressions. I notice you didn't respond to my point about Stalin saying he wasn't a totalitarian. Should that cat be removed? And you can bet I can find pro-Christian quotes from Hitler.

Find your secondary source. If you just revert again, I'm taking this to the admins. BillMasen (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No you cannot find any quotes. And please do try to find them. You have a secret hidden agenda here. Which includes the demonization of Christianity and the silencing of certain politically incorrect critics. Your bias has nothing to do with historical objectivity. You must prove Father Coughlin to be guilty of "antisemitism" and support of "the policies" (and not, as it is: only for some of the early policies). Nobody is guilty beforehand. You and others make the accusation. Coughlin was never condemned or accused for antisemitism in court or in a canonical court of the Church. One is innocent before proven guilty. Antisemitism is a huge stain still, especially if flasely attributed.Smith2006 (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Smith, do you have any source which clearly says the subject was not anti-Semitic? We've asked before. The subject is so well-known as an anti-semite that the categorization is appropriate. Also, you keep adding the word "early" to limit his rationalization of the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. What do you mean by "early"? Pre 1945? Pre 1939? Pre 1929? What? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Coughlin did not attack the Jewish race or demonize it. Prove that first. I do not care what ADL anti-Catholic publications claim and put into media propaganda practice!

Which makes you what -- an antisemite defending another antisemite? A self-confessed religious bigot defending the bigotry of others? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did Coughlin say that Jewish genes are evil and to be hated? Where did he claim áll Jews were to be blamed and to be harmed? Where did he speaks about áll Jews in his opposition to Communism? Since when is criticism of certain groups of Jews and not of all the Jews, antisemitism (which is: racism)? Prove this first. Father COughlin himself explained he was no antisemite, and every court should admit he was not. The letter above already proves it. A category "People accused of antisemitism" or "anti-Judaism" would be fine with me, and still controversial. But not antisemitism and linking him to Hitler and other racist theoreticists.Smith2006 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The short article on antisemitism in the The Oxford Companion to United States History has this long mention of Coughlin. By comparison, other individuals are only mentioned in passing.

• During the Depression-wracked 1930s, the presence of Jews among President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's advisers resulted in opponents of the New Deal labeling it the “Jew Deal.” In 1938, as Hitler's power increased in Germany, a Roman Catholic radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin, denounced Jews and encouraged his followers to join him in a “Christian Front.” Coughlin's attacks intensified over the next four years. In 1942, after the United States had entered World War II, Roosevelt threatened to jail Coughlin for sedition and Coughlin's superiors silenced him. But Coughlin was not alone. Anti-Semitism in the State Department, the corporate world, and the public at large played a role in Washington's hesitant response to the desperate plight of European Jews persecuted by the Nazis.

Here are excerpts from short biographies:

• By the late 1930s, his speeches were increasingly shrill. Listeners detected anti-Semitism and demagoguery in his broadcasts--elements that had appeared occasionally before, yet now were becoming more vocal and more frequent. What had in the past, for example, been occasional references to "Shylocks" and international financial conspirators undermining the country became an outright assault against "Communist Jews"; Coughlin also borrowed from the speeches of German Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. He opposed American entry into World War II vehemently, arguing that Jews had been responsible for bringing the nation into the conflict.
  • St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. 5 vols. St. James Press, 2000.

• As the 1930s wore on, however, Coughlin concentrated more and more on Communists and Jews as the source of societal and economic problems. Eventually, his rhetoric embraced a program that was anti-Semitic and fascist. He advocated a corporate state under which most political institutions would be demolished.
  • Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. Gale Group, 1999.

• Charles Edward Coughlin was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church and a populist leader who achieved fame through his radio broadcasts, and notoriety for his anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi stance in the years leading up to World War II. ... Initially focusing his attack on Communism, Coughlin gradually drifted into anti-Semitism and pro-Nazism. ... Through his radio speeches and books, Coughlin continued to promote anti-Semitism, and ardently opposed the entry of the United States into the war, even after the attack on Pearl Harbor.'
  • Religious Leaders of America, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 1999.

• In his weekly radio broadcasts, he ranted against President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he called a "liar" and "anti-God," against imagined Communists and all Jews.
• Made Anti-Semitic Statements. Coughlin briefly kept his promise to stop broadcasting, but was back on the air in 1937. Increasingly, anti-Semitic remarks began to creep into his weekly broadcasts. In addition, his newspaper Social Justice became a vehicle for messages of prejudice and hate. Coughlin accused Jews of introducing Communist international banking and declared that comedian Eddie Cantor was one of the most dangerous Jews in America. Jews, he said, had caused a world economic crisis and had drawn the United States into World Wars I and II. Jews wanted world power, declared the priest. He also claimed that Franklin Roosevelt was Jewish.
• Supported the Nazi Party. If Coughlin's sermons and publications became increasingly anti-Jewish, they also became increasingly pro-Nazi. When World War II began in Europe in 1939, he immediately backed the German dictator. He went so far as to describe Nazism as a "defense mechanism against communism." Coughlin's anti-Semitic remarks were quickly defended by organizers of the Christian Front, a pro-Nazi group.
  • American Decades. Gale Research, 1998.

• He also concentrated on the fancied internal menaces of Communists and Jews (who seemed interchangeable in Coughlin's thinking). Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, he announced, were bulwarks against "Jewish-Communist" power in Europe. Coughlin enunciated a program for an anti-Semitic, fascist-style corporate state, under which established political institutions in the United States would virtually disappear.
  • Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.

• But a combination of his pro-fascist Christian Front affiliations and his vehement anti-Roosevelt and anti-Semitic tirades brought him increased criticism.
  • Obituary notice Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2002.

• But, as the anti-Jewish Adolf Hitler was consolidating his power in Germany and set to begin World War II, Coughlin began to spout anti-Jewish notions....
• In 1938, Coughlin stunned the U.S. public when he suddenly began to voice antisemitic sentiments in his radio addresses. Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews, who are sometimes called Semites. (Hitler and his Nazi Party had been implementing anti-Jewish regulations in Germany since the early 1930s.) Although he never openly admitted to being an antisemite, Coughlin spoke in code words, blaming Jews for the Great Depression and other problems. He published in his newspaper Social Justice a false story about a Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world. He lashed out against evil "international bankers," blaming them for the country's problems. He played to the age-old stereotypes that many people believe about Jews. (A stereotype is a distorted, one-sided image of a person or idea; stereotypes about Jews include the belief that they are secretly trying to take control of the world's money supply.) While there were others who were more forceful in their charges against Jews, none had Coughlin's huge audience.
• Coughlin was a strong believer in the isolationist (non-involvement in other countries' affairs) movement of the 1920s and 1930s, which opposed involvement in European wars, and a large percentage of Americans shared his belief. He was an admirer of Benito Mussolini, and spoke out in favor of Adolf Hitler. Coughlin called Hitler's persecution of the Jews "a defense mechanism against Communism" because, he said, the Jews were responsible for the Russian Revolution that established the Communist Party in Russia, and they were trying to do the same thing in Germany.
  • People of the Holocaust. U*X*L, 1998.

• In 1938, Coughlin accused the Jews of being responsible for all the nation's ills. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," an account of a purported Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world, appeared in Social Justice. Henry Ford had published this same forged document more than a decade earlier. In a particularly outrageous speech, Coughlin defended Nazi actions against Communism and accused the Jews of financing the Russian Revolution. His newspaper even reprinted excerpts from the speeches of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.
  • Dictionary of American Biography, Supplement 10: 1976-1980. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995.

There are eight sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sixty years ago, Catholic social teaching was publicly and explicitly applied to a wide range of policy proposals and political initiatives. Not all of these applications turned out to be sources of pride for the Church in the long run (see the chapter, for example, on Father Charles Coughlin and his anti-Semitism), but the Church's leadership was not as limited then as it is today by an overriding emphasis on a single issue such as abortion.
  • "FDR, the Vatican, and the Roman Catholic Church in America, 1933-1945" Timothy A Byrnes. Presidential Studies Quarterly. Washington: Dec 2004. Vol. 34, Iss. 4; pg. 902, 2 pgs

• Henry Ford and the Rev. Charles Coughlin, the infamous Radio Priest, put Detroit on the map before World War Two as the US capital of anti-semitism.
  • "HISTORIANS IN THE STREETS: Life in the Ruins of Detroit" by Bill McGraw, History Workshop Journal Oxford: Spring 2007. Vol. 63, Iss. 1; p. 288

• Maria Mazzenga, The Catholic University of America, considered "To Condemn or Not to Condemn: Father Maurice Sheeny, the National Catholic Welfare Conference, and the Nazis." She examined the origins of the 1938 Catholic University of America anti-Nazi broadcast and its connection to the antisemitism of Father Charles Coughlin.
  • THE EIGHTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. The Catholic Historical Review. Washington: Apr 2008. Vol. 94, Iss. 2; pg. 283, 24 pgs

• The Wikipedian collectivity must temporarily "lock" controversial entries because of vandalism and "edit wars" in which articles are changed and immediately changed back, such as an effort by NYCExpat (user:NYCity Expat) to remove any references to Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitism.
  • "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past" Roy Rosenzweig. The Journal of American History. Bloomington: Jun 2006. Vol. 93, Iss. 1; pg. 117, 30 pgs

And so on. That last source should give us cause for concern - the efforts to remove this material have been reported on previously. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And Smith 22006 just reverted to his whitewashed version again, on the basis of a dubious distinction between anti-Semetism and anti-Judaism not generally used by mainstream historians. This is getting tiresome. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

==Antisemitism? No! == Because "mainstream" historians work for controlled institutions of universities of either Marxist, liberal or Protestant persuasions, or by guilt-ridden Catholics who were brainwashed into anti-Catholic, anti-historical ideology. Antisemitism is a well defined ideology in fact, even if some historians (or rather propaganda mongerers) do not admit that. Coughlin was no antisemite. He never used racism in his works, nor did he call all Jews communists, which is an interpretation by propagandistic Marxists wanting to share in the "sacred victim" status of the post-1945 Jews due to the Shoah. So-called "Catholics" who are liberals and marxists in disguise parasyting at Catholic universities, are no sources. Give me Oxford and Cambridge historians who provide proof that Coughlin believed that the Jewish biological race or ethnicity was "evil" and to be hated. For that is what Antisemitism is. Just because some Reform Rabbi and Israeli lobbyists cry out "antisemitism" with every criticism which does not please them, does not mean that religious criticism (anti-Judaism) or political criticism (anti-Zionism) constitute the racist ideology of antisemitism. By applying it to Coughlin you exalt the real evil antisemites out there. It will come back at you.Smith2006 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with and despise what Wikipedia calls reliable sources, that is not our problem. You just have to find a "non-calumnous" reliable source, or leave it alone. BillMasen (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any consensus here to remove the "antisemitism" category. One editor has removed that category something like 13 times, and it has been restored by four different editors, including myself. This is getting disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism is for articles that discuss antisemitism in some way. This article surely does. The lead of the category states in big, bold type:

This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are antisemitic.

I've restored the category, and recommend zero tolerance for further disruptions. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack removed"Restored the category". You sadly only confirmed your own position on Coughlin, which is of course the wrong and historically subjective biased one.Smith2006 (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole calumny against Rev. Coughlin being an "antisemite" is based on "sources". Whence from? From guilt-ridden, indoctrinated Americans, or from the ADL and their historians' minions. Going around accusing everyone who disagrees with them (e.g. Noam Chomsky) as antisemites. And yes, the Antisemitism category is false, as Coughlin was not an antisemite, he may have been anti-Judaic, but not anitsemite (a racial definition), as Coughlin had one Jewish convert co-worker in his shrine (I guess he'd be called a "self-hating Jew"Personal attack removed. There are plenty of books from Germany from 1850 until 1945 which could be cited to "prove" that "JEws are parasites" too. No serious scientists would believe such "non-obscure" sources though, with clear political and pseudoscientific motives behind them. And of course Nazi historians would not have seen that the 2 out of 100 Jewish workers in Berlin, working as construction workers or street salesmen, were honest hardworking German Jews who were not parasites at all. And the Nazi censors of those days would not have allowed primary sources refuting their hatred antisemitism to be refuted. The same is the case with the case of Fr. Coughlin, high-styled into "Catholic Antisemite before 1965/1945" stereotypePersonal attack removed. For political purposes only. COughlin's letter proves directly he was not an antisemite, and that he is being calumniated for political motives. And just like the Jewish workman of Munich or Berlin could not answer due to modest means to the Nazi villification propaganda, and prove that Jews are not parasites at all like the Hatred Propagandists alleged, this is also the case with the decimated Catholic community and dead Fr. Coughlin, who cannot defend himself anymore and was never asked or interviewed by the so-called "original" researchersPersonal attack removed. And yes, a Letter refutes very much, in fact it blasts all so-called 'research' on "Fr. Coughlin and his religious antisemitism"....! The only thing which can be said is that Fr. Coughlin's writings have been instrumentalized by real antisemites in order to mainstream their hatred ideology against Jews, by posing as "Catholics". But the ADL does the other way around, it calls the Catholic Church of history to be "antisemitic" and Coughlin the "archetype" from the 1930s! Those are lies, lies, lies, deception.Smith2006 (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Smith2006 means by 'antiJudaic', but I certainly disagree with his statement that antisemite is a race definition (how many times have I hear 'I'm not an anti-semite, I like Arabs) - I agree with Wikipedia's definition, "is prejudice and hostility toward Jews as a group." Smith seems to be almost complaining that the people who called Coughlin anti-Semites are/were Jews and their dupes. Doug Weller (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Smith2006, please do not make personal attacks and civility violations again. Further rants about "ADL puppets paid to control Wiki articles" will be met with a much more severe response. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Even in this discussion section the Letter which clearly refutes the antisemitism charges against Coughlin, has been deleted. A cunning strategy for those lobbyists desiring to slander the Catholic Church with 'antisemitism' charges. The letter is authentic, the references are provided. Here it is anew:

• • • Snipped copyvio

\::::The most pure propaganda strategies are followed on this article by the lobbyists with too much spare time.Smith2006 (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• A) Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources. If this material is free from copyright then it can be uploaded to Wikisource. If it is covered by copyright then it is inappopriate to cite in its entirety. B) It is hardly verifiable, as the publication is so obscure. C) It is being used to construct an argument that because Coughlin wrote those words he was not an antisemite. D) You've again deleted the "antisemtism" category, ignoring the discussion above. I'll restore the category. Please gain the consensus of your fellow editors before removing it again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A reference is a reference. Just because it does not fit the ADL propaganda techniques, does not mean the source is "so obscure". The reference can be easily seen into at local US libraries which can request this publication.Smith2006 (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please be civil. Calling your fellow editors "lobbyists" or implying they are using the "ADL propaganda techniques" is an inappropriate failure to assume good faith. You appear to think that editors are engaged in a plot to stifle information. But if you look in other biographies you won't see entire letters copied verbatim in any of them. It's just not done. For one thing, it's source material and we don't paste entire sources into articles. For another, doing so is a copyright violation. Lastly, the publication is so obscure I can't find any information about it. WorldCat, a consolidated database of library holdings in the United States, doesn't mention it.[4] The National Library of Ireland doesn't list it either.[5] Please indicate where you obtained this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• See also: Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. If the letter is important some reliable secondary source will have referred to it and/or summarized it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Should it be removed from this talk page? Doug Weller (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It has been cited on this page before. There's no need to keep reposting it. If it's from 1940 it's still copyrighted. I've snipped it - interested readers may consult this page's history or archives to see it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that the letter should be, or at least could be summarised in the article. Presumably people at the time accused Coughlin of antisemitism. And this is him saying "no i wasn't". Of course, we can't conclude that he wasn't just because he said so. However, it does not require any exposition to demonstrate that he said he wasn't. BillMasen (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Did any reliable secondary sources take any notice of this letter? If so, we can quote what they said. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this letter is that it is unverifiable. I can't even find any trace of the magazine where it was purportedly published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI: the external links section contains a link to an antisemitic website: http://www.fathercoughlin.com/ The information on this site is inaccurate and ignores a massive amount of scholarship on Coughlin's anti-Jewish writings, speeches and activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazzenga (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While sites that seek to collect archives on notable individuals are normally linked, that site turns out to have relatively little of value, and is poorly organized. I'm not sure that it's worthwhile. I didn't find the anitsemitic contnet, but if it collects Coughlin's material that would be expected. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason it is antisemitic is because the banner across the top says "Father Charles Coughlin Not Antisemitic" then supports it with Coughlin's own assertion of same, which is a common tactic of the priest--he often made anti-Jewish comments then, even in the same sentence, said he wasn't being antisemitic. That site, moreover, tendentiously selects documents unrelated to Coughlin's antisemitism to show that he wasn't antisemitic, rather than using the antisemitic documents and then trying to refute their antisemitism.

In his 1938 radio broadcast commenting on Kristallnacht, just to give an example of Coughlin's M.O., the priest claimed that the Nazi pogrom against Germany's Jews was wrong, then gave a lengthy exposition on how "bad" and "atheistic" Jews were behind a global conspiracy to spread Communism and therefore deserved the treatment the Nazis visited upon them. Highly respected scholars such as Mary Athans and Leslie Tentler have clearly proven Coughlin's antisemitism in published work. M.Mazzenga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazzenga (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict between Kennedy et al. forcing him off the air in 1936 and later discussion of radio programs during that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.158.37 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"He began publication of a newspaper, Social Justice, during this period, in which he printed antisemitic polemics such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

When did he do that? In which issue of 'Social Justice'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to sources, in started in the summer of 1938.[6][7] Why does it matter which issue? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the texts were banned from mail delivery. Does anyone have access to the texts (not just front covers)? This would help answer these questions a lot. —Kanodin (talk to me / slap me) 09:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your article implies Fr. Coughlin gave no interviews either after his retirement in '66 or after his radio days, but this is not so.

Due to orders from his Bishop Father Coughlin remanined "silent" for many years. However, he did have a lenghy CBS Chicago Radio interview circa 1976. It is quite interesting and,I think,should be cited. It is available along with many of his broadcasts from " Bobby's Digital OTR(Old Time Radio). Robert Carmignani, rcarmig@yahoo.com.Rcarmig (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. Let's see if we can find a way of intergrating that later interview into the article.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above should replace "Cancellation of the Radio Show", which misleadingly suggests that Coughlin or his company voluntarily canceled the show.Flegelpuss (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two or three quotes attributes to this site. On a brief perusal, it appears to be a self-published website, or rather a website of a self-publishing author. Surely there must be better sources for this quotes? If not, they probably don't meet WP:RS and should go. There seem to be adequate sources for the general theme of anti-Semitic statements, even if those quotes are excluded. Newt ^(winkle) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hits on this page went up to 3200 on March 12, 2010 the day after the TV broadcast compared to 200-500 before. Bachcell (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Coughlin/Archive 1

"Unconstructive" truth - Father Coughlin was a man of the left (although not the Marxist left).

Father Charles Coughlin was a man of the left. He broke with President Roosevelt because he believed that President Roosevelt and the "New Deal" HAD NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH.

To edit out the truth as "not constructive" does not stop the truth being the truth.91.107.124.251 (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what is verifiable, and leaves determinations of "Truth" to others. Do you have a reliable source for this assertion? If so we can add it.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

THe statement is made in the article that the move the Changeling had a Coughlin like character. Nonsense.. The movie had a character who was a real life character: Rev. Guast Briegleb, a real radio personality and reformer. See http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSsr=41&GSmpid=23317045&GRid=31439370& — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pemmett (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the citations in the article on Father Coughlin is problematic. In the section on anti-Semitism, the article states: "At a rally in the Bronx in 1938, he (Father Charles Coughlin) reportedly gave a Nazi salute and said, "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing." The endnote cites a book by William Manchester, The Glory and the Dream, page 176. When I obtained a copy of that book, I discovered that while this alleged incident is indeed recorded in this book, the author, William Manchester, cites a source which, which, instead of verifying that Father Coughlin made this statement, actually attributes the statement to someone else.

The book by Manchester does not provide numbered endnotes. Instead, at the end of the book, he provides citations for each paragraph. To the paragraph in which he attributes this terrible statement to Father Coughlin, he provides three citations. He cites a New York Times article from 7/22/37, the book by John L. Spivak, Shrine of the Silver Dollar, page 137, and a Time magazine from 3/6/39. The New York Times article from 1937 must refer to something else in the paragraph, since Father Coughlin allegedly made this statement in 1938. The Time magazine article refers to a vote in the U.S House against providing money to improve our military defense of Guam.

That leaves the book by Spivak. Spivak's book was written in 1940, while Father Coughlin was still broadcasting, and was one of the harshest condemnations of Father Coughlin in print. The complete text of this book is printed online at archive.org. On page 137 (the page cited by Manchester), the book as it appears online reads, "Van Nosdall, who headed the save-America crew, was closely tied up with Nazi agents and was once publicly acclaimed as 'the greatest living American' by Fritz Kuhn, head of the Nazi Bund in this country. Besides being a crusader, Van Nosdall was also a bit sanguinary. At one of the Coughlin defense meetings, held at Triboro Palace, Bronx, New York, he gave the Nazi salute to the applauding crowd and shouted: 'When we get through with the Jews in America they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing. . . ."

As you can see, while Manchester, the Wikipedia article, and dozens of other websites, attribute this quotation to Father Coughlin, Spivak's book attributes the quote to one of Father Coughlin's supporters, George Van Nosdall, the leader of "Crusaders for Americanism". I simply want to know if Father Coughlin himself actually made this totally repugnant statement. Is it possible that Spivak attributes this quote to the wrong person, and that Father Coughlin really did say it? And that Manchester cited the wrong source?

That is why I ask that, if Father Coughlin actually made this statement, then a better source than The Glory and the Dream, by William Manchester, be cited. On the other hand, if the statement was actually made by Van Nosdall, and not Father Coughlin, then a correction should be made to the article.

This discrepancy is troubling me. I will be very grateful if someone can help me out on this.

Update: After I voiced these concerns, the statement in question and the citation of Manchester's book were removed from the article. I appreciate the prompt response.JDefauw (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 02:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The question was recently raised, with regard to this article, about what is the proper way to refer to a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. Here is a link to a wikipedia article which answers that question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_%28Catholicism%29#Title_and_reference_style

Cardinals sign their names as, for example, Adam Cardinal Maida, and I often see them referred to in that way. However, according to the wikipedia article, several style books say that we should refer to them as Cardinal Adam Maida. I think that this would be less confusing to many non-Catholic readers. So I would keep the revert edit of SoundofMusicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 22:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

the fraudulent, anti-semitic text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

What is fraudulent about this text? I agree it is anti-semitic. But unless someone can show "fraud" in its printing, these two attributes should be removed. 75.255.179.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

See: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A contributor has recently questioned what exactly Father Coughlin meant when he said the Depression was caused by a "cash famine". The first problem we need to resolve is that I don't think it is likely that the reference given in the article (the book by Milton Friedman and Anna Shwartz) contains that statement by Father Coughlin. We do still need a reference for that statement.

If Father Coughlin did make that statement, I know what he meant by it. He meant that there wasn't enough money in circulation, and he believed that the Federal Reserve needed to increase the amount of money in circulation. That opinion was not controversial at the time he said it. To remedy the problem, however, he advocated more drastic monetary measures than what President Roosevelt was willing to implement. (My POV: The drastic measures he recommended may have lead to hyper-inflation.)

In 1963, Milton Friedman and Anna Schwarz wrote a book, A Monetary History of the United State, in which they argued that the main cause of the Depression was a Federal Reserve policy which permitted the money supply to contract by 30%. So they certainly agreed that we suffered from a "cash famine" (not enough money in circulation).

The best explanation of Father Coughlin's monetary prescriptions that I have read is in Alan Brinkley's book Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression. (Again, I don't recall the phrase "cash famine" being used in that book). If anyone has access to that book, they can improve the article and offer a clearer explanation of Father Coughlin's recommendations regarding monetary policy. When I get a chance, I hope to borrow the book from a friend.Dulcimer music (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

I think the reference supplied is in support of the contention (that a "cash famine", by whatever name, helped cause the depression) is supported by some economists, rather than support for Coughlin's having this idea, or using this term to describe it. Agree we really do need something clear and well cited here. If you can get hold of a copy of your source and do this it would be most useful. When we have an article on a basically "unsympathetic" character like Coughlin it is very important we give his his dues (assuming he has any).--Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Like most of us, Coughlin was a complex person, but the idea that somehow he was not an antisemite is grotesque in the extreme. Everything he ever said on the subject of the "Jewish Question" (one of his major obsessions) was classic antisemitism, including (in fact especially) the "nice" (patronising) comments about "good Jews". That is, of course, by no means all that is to be said about him, or this article would not need to be longer than a brief stub, but it is something that needs to be said, or the article would be dreadfully unbalanced. This shouldn't need to be belaboured, but someone wanted to exclude him from the antisemitism category, so I had to say something.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything of the sort. Instead, I am simply pointing to previous consensus on this issue, which is clearly noted at the top of Category:Antisemitism, that people and organizations are not to be added to it that are accused of anti-semitism. That text was placed by an admin, as the result of a consensus discussion at CFD. The extent of this bio's anti-semitism is a matter for the article, and I am not commenting on that at all through this removal. If you'd like to continue this discussion,please join us at Category_talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States where the discussion is ongoing about this (and related) categories, along with many links provided to previous discussions, etc. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please join us. It's beginning to look like categories are too important to be left to whoever's making these decisions in the smoke-filled rooms of CfD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Given what you told me before about cats, Alf, I'm not sure if you'll enjoy those smoke filled rooms. I do, for some reason, but it is a special kind of hell, haunted by it's own kind of demons, etc. But you, and Soundofmusicals, and anyone else watching, is very much welcome to join CFD discussions - there are about 12 a day, most of them rather banal, but some are barn-burners.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please participate: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Better_notification_system. Thanks! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I found archival newspaper article about the subject. It seems like it should be important enough to add to the article. Gorba (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No -- the article says some of Rutherford's people assumed without evidence that the people booing him were "followers" of Coughlin. Coughlin did not operate any bands of thugs. Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is why I asked here first. Gorba (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Coughlin lived for almost 40 years after his period of notoriety. What of interest occurred with him during that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.159.156 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Charles Coughlin was known as "Father Coughlin" (even though his actual title was Monsignor Coughlin). Father is a title, as is Pope. Father is not his first name.

The Francis Sheen article doesn't call him by the title for which he was universally known, "Cardinal Sheen." It calls him appropriately by his last name: Sheen. Same for the article on Cardinal Spellman and Bishop Jefferts Schori, et al., et al.

Similarly, this article, after establishing that he was known as Father Coughlin (as it does), should designate him by his last name: Coughlin (with the exception of direct quotes, etc.).

The person who undid my logical revision simply referred to Wikipedia's MoS without any explanation. I would love to hear a justification for that person's undoing of my revision that is contradicted in other articles concerning clergy (except for those rare cases in which the article also occasionally and unnecessarily adds the title in the article after the title is initially established).

Interestingly, the person who undid my totally logical revision undid my corrections of all the incorrect periods after a quotation mark! Surely Wikipedia follows U.S. protocol for such. 108.6.10.77 (talk), 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not follow "U.S. protocol", it follows the Wikipedia manual of style, including "logical quotation". Since the reasonable multiple deletions of the title were intermixed in the same edit as an equal or greater number of incorrect punctuation changes, the one became collateral damage in the correction of the other. 2600:1006:B155:F318:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles Coughlin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.centimes.demon.co.uk/Fragments/carnivaletcatranscript.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Before you again preach disrespectful comments and assume I teenager because of my edit, I suggest you be cooperative and neutral. Lear also claimed he heard Coughlin preach anti-semetic rhetoric when he was nine,[8] but strangely this source, an interview which Lear gave to the Jewish Journal, was regarded as spam when I tried to include it hours ago.2601:447:4101:AE6:B844:969C:7B53:DF7B (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC) It is no longer listed as spam. Maybe it was just a technical glitch.2601:447:4101:AE6:B844:969C:7B53:DF7B (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

sorry--I did not mean to insult an editor....it was Lear who was the young teenager I distrusted. the article on Lear states "he recounts being 9 years old and hearing the anti-Semitic preacher Father Charles Coughlin on a homemade radio....That kid poking around on his crystal set, spooked by a Jew hater, still lives in me." Lear was born in 1922. Coughlin was on the radio in 1931 but he was NOT antisemitic at that point. He was a liberal supporter of FDR in 1932 and then changed after 1936. Lear's memory 80+ years later is off by at least 5 years--it is not reliable enough to be useful. Lear does not remember any content. We already know that millions of people listened every week, and we don't need Lear's two sentences. His memoir is (on this topic) a poor quality primary source and not a reliable secondary source of the kind Wikipedia prefers, Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A quote didn't make sense, so I found it in Google Books [1].  Sure enough, a word was missing.  The change is sorta significant to the topic.  Besides what I have done, how else should I document this change? Gil (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Coughlin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224203858/http://www.history.com/video.do?name=culture to http://www.history.com/video.do?name=culture&bcpid=1886192586&bclid=1729287195&bctid=1626108132

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

erasing sourced info on Coughlin from major media using uncivil language is against Wiki policy. If you actually have a position you need to state it here on the Coughlin talk page. the WP:UNDUE rule applies to fringe or minority views --they should get less attention than mainstream views. What we have here are the mainstream views from top publications. TIME's Person of year cover story for example is one of the most important news articles of the year. The complaint that the source only briefly mentions Coughlin is poorly stated: they are stating that Coughlin is a major historical figure and that he is one of the handful of American political figures closest in rhetorical style to Trump. We can also add numerous cites to NY Times, Washington Post, POLITICO Wall Street Journal and other top newspapers if you think more evidence is needed that the Trump-Coughlin comparison is mainstream journalism. Rjensen (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

add the Trump "material" to the historian's pages IF it is really that notable.--Malerooster (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The articles aren't about the historians. They're about Coughlin and Trump.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Coughlin is in the news in a big way in the last year for the first time in eight decades--and that is notable for his biography. It's the first time he's been compared to an (incoming) President. we're talking about daily reports by political commentators in print & TV & online and not obscure history journals. "Hardly a day passes without some columnist comparing Donald J. Trump to Huey Long, Father Coughlin or George Wallace." cite = Fredrik Logevall and Kenneth Osgood, New York Times Aug. 29, 2016 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

maybe revisit this in 6-12 months, but really not much here, really. --Malerooster (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's been going on for a year now. It's the biggest news re Coughlin in decades. Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It can be easily argued that their "disputes" were just an act.2601:447:4101:41F9:D14D:E8BA:4092:A640 (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As of 2021-04-08 the second sentence in the section on "Cancellation" read, "The Vatican, the Apostolic Nunciature to the United States, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati all wanted him to be silenced."

Are there references on that?

Pius XII, who was Pope from 1939-03-02 until his death in 1958 was called "Hitler's Pope". There is substantial controversy about that.

However, I'm deleting that sentence. I will be happy if someone wants to revert my deletion while adding a credible reference. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Citation Needed tag on the lede's claim that Coughlin's broadcasts were "[s]purred by Ku Klux Klan-orchestrated cross burnings" got reverted, with the remark "check article's body for sources, this is only WP:Lede". I probably erred by questioning whether the claim was factual / supported by sources, instead of just removing it as (a) irrelevant in the lede, and (b) an attempt to position Coughlin's career as a reaction to / in opposition to the Klan. If the important context was rising anti-Catholic bigotry, and the church taking a more assertive role in combatting it, then that context isn't really communicated by referencing a particular (but unspecified) cross burning by a group popularly known for its anti-black terrorism. OTOH if what we are trying to communicate is "sure, he embraced fascism and nazism, but the klan started it", the lede may be fine as it stands now. 2600:1702:6D1:28B0:FDD9:3732:36F8:5A3B (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason that Coughlin’s anti-Semitic stance is left out of the introduction? Sarahefrancis (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's right there: "After hinting at attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to broadcast antisemitic commentary. In the late 1930s, he supported some of the fascist policies of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito of Japan..."--Pondarosaka (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The opening sentence (about Norman Lear's much later recollection) seems oddly placed. I don't say it's unimportant. It just doesn't function well as the transition or lead into a new topic. Seems more like a supporting or interesting detail. I'm new to this article so didn't make the edit unilaterally; I only came to read it, as I read something elsewhere about Father Coughlin. Hult041956 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)