Jump to content

Talk:1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden

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

Swastikas at the sides?

[edit]

The intro describes the giant Washington portrait as having "Swastikas at the sides" but I cannot see any swastikas in the image or the actual video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:2D40:41A3:9910:0:0:0:525 (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the yellow "trophy" is a swastika symbol. Washington was not a Nazi either. 2601:5C5:4303:5CA0:D83A:B6C8:ABED:8610 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly white

[edit]

@User:Place Clichy, this was a white-supremacist rally held by a white-supremacist organization. I think the whiteness of this rally is pretty clear. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to denote however that "white-supremacist" is an American term for an American context. The National Socialists did not care so much about the color of your skin. Slavs and Jews can also have white skin. The race is the main factor for European National Socialist organizations. Swingkidz (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even less inclusive than white supremacists, eh? Shoot, we're gonna need a word for that. Dinero (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

community help

[edit]

I could not figure out how to fix the broken link. Here is the correct one for the first endnote: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/madison-square-garden-nazis-796197/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.204.165 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this recording in the public domain?

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLk3uwZy5M The office it comes from would suggest that it is public domain? Victor Grigas (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing Trump rally 2024

[edit]

The rally wasn't racist and the piece about the rally and speakers being racist is an opinion and has no facts to back it up. Article should be non partisan. 35.33.128.233 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that they say that it was racist and then quote themselves saying that it was racist. This last entry - whoever is responsible for it - really discredit Wikipedia and shows its lack of neutrality out in the open. Swingkidz (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia, nowhere is it claimed otherwise. If you only want to read what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not partisan or non-partisan; Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources. Bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That needs to be corrected. I watched the rally and there was nothing said that could be construed as racist. 2600:1009:A021:EB0B:5CE0:1DCF:F82A:6063 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That obfuscates the issue in that sources claim Governor Walz made the comparison. If that's accurate, there's not much that can be done. If Governor Walz is in error, you should direct your concern to the campaign, or offer independent sources that say he is in error. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rally was 100% racists. The Puerto Rico comment alone was enough, not worth trying to take any more spoonfuls of that ocean. Denying that it was racist is racist, but that's typically how racism works.
If it weren't, every attendee and supporter today woulda been condemning those remarks and expressing sincere solidarity and gratitude to their fellow citizens in the carribbean, and bringing the issue of statehood to the forefront so something good could come of this.
Rather than spending today defensively denying that it was racist. Dinero (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't there multiple large Israel flags in the crowd? --FMSky (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, please don't simply blanket out sources without explaining their relevance. Simply that a link exists doesn't mean it has direct credence, so it puts the onus on us to check to see if you're right. And if they were to be used in the article, making us do the work of matching lines and ideas to sources that you presumably have already done.
For the Washington post article, they give that it's conspicuous that the Garden was selected despite its relatively small size compared to the total number of Trump voters in 2020, and otherwise that the rhetoric of the Trump rally was also heated. But all Trump rallies have heated rhetoric. It's clear that whatever analysis is to be had, it's just literary analysis and comparison rather than a deliberate reflection by the Trump campaign to evoke Nazism by staging their rally at the same place as one over 80 years ago, which is also one of America's most storied venues (and not because of the 1939 Nazi rally). I think you're conflating their analysis -- which it is quite clear they are not saying the comparison is anything intentional on the part of the Trump campaign -- conflating that analysis as some kind of demonstrable truth. So, you are in effect using these sources to say something other than what they do. There is nothing encyclopedic about a literary comparison of a modern political rally to one from 80 years before it, which are in support of completely different things. And the comparison is in itself inflammatory, because it holds in equal weight a talk of relocating illegal immigrants to the deliberate genocide of the Jewish people by the actual Nazi party, which is what the German-American Bund was advocating. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conesus on Comparing Trump rally 2024

[edit]

An editor asked for consensus on removing the 'see also' like to the 2024 rally. I'm seeing IP address user, Swingkidz, macaddress user, FMSky, and myself are mostly for removing the link, whereas Another Believer, 331dot, and Dinero oppose the move. Is that right? I say, despite how users might feel about the 2024 rally, it cannot logically be relevant to the 1939 rally; only the opposite could be true. If a second party comparison necessitates linking a nearly century-old subject to a news event that happened yesterday, surely we should add Donald Trump to the see also page for Hitler and see how that goes over. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not relatable in any way, shape or form to Trumps rally yesterday and even implying so is highly disturbing and offensive --FMSky (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of See also section given numerous sources linking the two events. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in any way related, and none of the "numerous" sources you mention are not WP:RS. Stop agenda pushing, I have seen you doing this on other pages also. Wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL! For someone that goes to Wikimania so much, you of all people should know that.
Besides the fact that this Madison Square Garden was a completely different building, the only racist thing said at the Trump event was a single joke that fell flat about Puerto Rico. Addition of any reference of the Trump rally is completely irrelevant and frankly, against Wikipedia's fairness and neutrality policies. Hamjamguy (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Tim Walz alleging a link between the rallies: [1] The Hill is considered reliable under WP:THEHILL. Same goes for Hillary Clinton and CBS: [2](although it doesn't have a shortcut, it is under WP:RSP). Axios [3], CNN [4] and the Guardian [5], all of which are considered at least generally reliable through discussion on this sight, have also reported on this. I agree Wikipedia needs to be neutral, but Wikipedia:Don't "teach the controversy" means we have to apply these per reliable sources, while WP:NPOV and WP:Controversy, state that we have to report neutrally (meaning attribution, i.e: Tim Walz stated...; Hillary Clinton concurred...; Trump denied...). This avoids stating opinions as facts, while also countering WP:Idontlikeit. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 04:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if worded correctly (for example: Tim Walz and Hillary Clinton allege that the Trump rally was similar to the 1939 Nazi rally in the old Madison Square Garden) as well as countering it with another viewpoint (for example: Vivek Ramaswamy on CNN noting that George Lopez made a similarly racist joke at a Kamala event and noting the double standard) it would be appropriate. But without presenting both sides of the argument I don't believe it is relevant at all, its week-before-election nonsense to even make such a comparison Hamjamguy (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat of a personal opinion here but if Fox News isnt considered WP:RS for political news (for obvious reasons), The Guardian (which is essentially a tabloid) should be given the same treatment. The Guardian repeatedly publishes misinformation about even non-political issues, particularly deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Hamjamguy (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although technically I suppose you could include these references if they abide by WP:NPOV, nobody would even be making this comparison if Trump had hosted this rally at literally any other venue. Hence my opinion that it is factually irrelevant to this article Hamjamguy (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reliable sources linked above, the link between the events can be properly attributed to his critics as is done in the sources. Yeeno (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we appear to be trapped in a cycle of getting no where with roughly a 50/50 split in support for the addition, should we move this low speed edit war to the WP:DRN? Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 06:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6/5, we have a slim majority. Let's wait at least a few days (Nov 5th?) to see if the comparison has enough cultural impact to be noteworthy beyond "democrats talked about it while it was happening." You can DRN if you want but I don't think it's needed. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as of now it seems no serious edit wars are actually happening, so far this has been surprisingly civil (considering large numbers of decorated Wikipedia editors have a personal vendetta against both IP editors and Trump) so for now, wait until Nov 5 Hamjamguy (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden&oldid=1254577161"