Talk:Joseph Breen

Breen's antisemitism

The fact that Breen was antisemitic is legitimately relevant to his career as a film censor, but the section that's in there now is ridiculous. It gives the appearance of undue weight because it doesn't relate his feelings to his role. We don't put in an entire level two section with one sentence in it every time some random person says that Jews are the scum of the earth, do we?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, there's a start, but there's a lot more to be said. How did this article end up at ANI with a blank talk page, I wonder?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Alf: "How did this article end up at ANI with a blank talk page, I wonder?" : I guess because on my end I tend to explain everything in edit summaries. You'll have to ask User:Sallieparker for his/her reasons. More importantly, thanks for improving the article. Normally "a random person" saying nasty things about Jews would not necessarily be newsworthy or notable, but Breen was hardly a random person, particularly given his interactions with Jews and others, and his clout as chief censor of U.S. films for twenty years or so. Have you loked at Pre-Code?? Quis separabit? 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, obviously this is essential to the guy's career, but it didn't look good before at all. Anyway, I'm glad you think that my edits were improvements.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Breen and Pelley

Regarding this diff. KeithBob changed this material:

William Dudley Pelley, founder of the anti-Semitic organization the Silver Legion of America, believed that Jews controlled the movie industry, which he thought to be the "most effective propaganda medium in America," during the 1930s. Hence he applauded the fact that Breen had assumed the power to censor Hollywood.

in favor of this:

William Dudley Pelley, founder of the anti-Semitic organization the Silver Legion of America applauded Breen's censorship of Hollywood films.

First of all, the source says specifically that Pelley applauded Breen's appointment as censor, so the edit introduced an error, or at least a departure from the source. Second of all, without explaining why Pelley cared about Breen's appointment, which was his belief that Jews controlled the movie industry, stating that Pelley applauded his censorship is mere tarring by association. Breen couldn't control who applauded him, so if we're going to say that reprehensible characters applauded him we ought only to do it if it sheds some light on Breen in particular, and to do that we have to explain the reason for the applause. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alf, and thanks for opening this thread and starting a discussion. To my thinking, this article is about Breen. It's not about the PCA, the Hayes Code or William Pelley. It's a summary of significant events in Breen's life. If Pelley is a notable person and he has made some notable comment or criticism of Breen then that might be relevant to the article. But insights into who Pelley was and his background and why he didn't like Breen belong in Pelley's bio not this one. At least those are my thoughts and views. I'm also open to input and discussion from others. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, see, Pelley *did* like Breen. Pelley was a facist. If you want to say "Facist X liked Other guy Y" and not explain the context then it is merely innuendo. You might as well say "Hitler liked Disney movies" in an article about Disney movies. The point here is that Pelley liked Breen because Breen was aligned with Pelley's views on the motion picture industry. In this form it *does* tell us something about Breen. In your form it does not tell us something about Breen, not to mention the fact that your version deviates from the source it's cited to. It's important to state the context here otherwise it just sounds like we're saying "and oh, by the way, some random facist liked Breen."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, Keith, "...this article is about Breen. It's not about the PCA, the Hayes [sic] Code..." is a non-starter because Breen's primary claim to fame was the power he wielded as chief censor of U.S. films for two decades or so. Breen, the PCA and the Code (no longer really the Hays Code), are too interconnected to be separated. Respectfully, Quis separabit? 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"are too interconnected to be separated", sorry but I respectfully disagree. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My edits

After seeing this article highlighted at ANI I have made several bold edits to remove off topic info and what I consider to be strong POV pushing in the form of undue weight towards criticisms of Breen. I have also begun to add additional text about Breen and will continue to do so in the next few days. I also have the article on my watchlist and I look forward to collaborating with others to improve and expand the article. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You think these criticisms are undue weight? Please provide any reliable sources that have anything positive to say about Breen's career, if you will. I tried to put in the single nice thing I could find about his career, that in 1939 he issued public statements against anti-Semitism, and you accused me of coatracking. Really, in the reliable sources, there is very little but criticism of the guy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I found some things in the Variety source that I have added. I look around in the next few days and see what other sources say. I'm not looking for positive or negative things. I'm just interested in accurately reflecting the best sources in a neutral fashion. I would think we are on the same page in that regard.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, and we probably are, but really, can you be more specific about the POV pushing and the undue weight? Those are serious issues and if you really think this article was suffering from them before your edits, it would be helpful if you could tell us precisely what they were.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Off Topic/Coatrack

In my opinion this text, added today, is off topic per WP:COATRACK and should be removed. Comments?

• In 1938, largely in response to Nazi activities in Germany, Pope Pius XI denounced anti-Semitism, stating that "it is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism." In response to this encouragement, American Catholics formed the Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism. The two authors of the Hays code, Daniel A. Lord and Martin J. Quigley, promoted the cause and Quigley asked Breen to help gather statements of support from Catholics in the Hollywood film industry. Breen did so, and issued a statement himself, which said, in part, "In my judgement there is nothing more important for us Catholics to do at the present moment [July 1939] than to use our energies in stemming the tide of racial bigotry and hostility."Thomas Doherty (1 April 2009). Hollywood's Censor: Joseph I. Breen and the Production Code Administration. Columbia University Press. pp. 211–2. ISBN 978-0-231-14359-2. Retrieved 27 May 2013.
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important because it's the only instance I've been able to find where people talked about Breen's opposition to anti-Semitism. Evidently towards the end of the 1930s he either changed his mind or decided to appear to do so. Since he made extremely public statements against anti-Semitism later in the decade it seems important to mention them, since otherwise his entire career would be a litany of ways in which his anti-Semitism guided his actions. However, I'm not strongly attached to it, and you're welcome to take it out. On the other hand, if part of it goes, all of it should go. Merely quoting him in 1939 as being against anti-Semitism without the context of the statement seems incoherent to me. Furthermore, COATRACK says "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." What is the "tangentially related biased subject" that you are claiming that this article is a cover for?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"According to author Jill Watts" hedge about antisemitism

This hedge was inserted to qualify a declaration of Breen's antisemitism. It's really not just according to Jill Watts, whose opinion carries no weight. It's in every book ever written about the guy's career. Can we just take the word of the seven or eight other sources, cited in the article, which also say this, or do we have to have a string of numbers eight inches long after the statement just like in Israel/Palestine articles and other sites of conflict. Is there anyone here who is actually willing to defend, with sources, the idea that it is in any way controversial to call Joseph Breen an antisemite without attributing it to every author who agrees? There are hundreds of them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK but please add more citations if you want the statement to be in the voice of WP. At present only Jill Watts is cited. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How's this? I dropped the specific quote from Jill Watts. Are you claiming that the subsequent discussion, sourced to multiple books, discussing his anti-Semitism, is not sufficient to support this statement? What about WP:Citation overkill?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the quote but the sentence: Breen was notoriously anti-Semitic is cited only to author Jill Watts. If we want to say in WP's voice that Breen was "notorious" for something then it would be good to have more than one source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's confirmed by all the other sources in the two paragraphs there. Maybe it would be better to remove the citation altogether and treat it as summarizing the subsequent material, which is sourced to a bunch of sources all of which confirm his notorious antisemitism?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism.

Is there some specific reason to have this bolded? I don't much care whether it's redlinked or not, but it looks really weird bolded like that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the question is moot, since I just wrote the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Birth Year Discrepancy

This source:

• Robbin Coons (August 10, 1934). "Film Censor Finds Censorship Begins at Home — Breen Selects the Movies His Children See". Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

Says that he was born in 1890. The NYT obit that the 1890 year is cited to says that he died at the age of 75 in 1965 but it does not explicitly state the year of his birth. If he was indeed 75 when he died in 1965 it's possible that he could have been born in 1889 rather than 1890, but not in 1888. I'm going to change it to 1890 since there's a source for that and it's consistent with the NYT obit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)