# Talk:Theodore N. Kaufman

Several revisions of this page have been made including incorporating portions from the German Wikipedia translation (self-translated, so there may be some errors).  I also found good published sources that support the significant revisions.216.189.209.130 (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

This page can use some improvements.  That is agreed.  Some of the translation from German can be improved.  HOWEVER, this was well-researched and is based on factual information, not opinions.
If you have comments on this page, here is the place to make them.  You do NOT have the right to simply re-edit anything you like because you think there is too much "editorializing" or because you think this is Nazi propaganda, any more than anyone else would have the right to find anything that appears Zionist and making the same types of changes.
If you have constructive comments, MAKE THEM.  216.189.209.130 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

Actually, the only verifiable source cited is an opinion piece, a book review which isn't even a news article.  There might be some thing notability for the book, but there isn't really any for the person.  And your writing was completely non-neutral.  It basically reads like an attack piece (and your use of the word "Zionist" tips your hand as to your intentions). Also, you cannot translate anything yourself and include it here, that is original research.  We should revert it to its state as a redirect unless these issues can be worked out. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you might want to see what was translated before you make blanket assumptions.  I sourced the information properly, according to Wikipedia's guidelines and the information translated relates to quotes that were properly attributed to the original sources.
I think that it is time for you to back off or to escalate this to a higher level because you are showing a personal bias that is not acceptable and is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines.216.189.209.130 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130
Actually, there are quotes from the book that was written and quotes from the author.  These are supportable sources in Wikipedia.  There is no anti Zionist bias in the writing nor in the intent.  Let's take this to a committee.216.189.209.130 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130
The author proposed the sterilization of Americans and then Germans.  How can any article discussing him NOT appear somewhat negative??? 216.189.209.130 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130
See - Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS --  Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.  THEREFORE, using TIME magazine QUOTE as a REVIEW source is appropriate!   The OTHER Time Magazine source is on an ARTICLE about the subject, and an additional ARTICLE is from ANOTHER newspaper, the Lewiston, Maine Sun Journal (http://www.sunjournal.com/).  Then you overlook the OTHER sources: The Journal of Modern History; ANOTHER New York Times article; Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte; 'Judenvernichtung'; Das Kriegsziel der Weltplutokratie; and  "The Jewish Declaration of War Against the Nazis", Berel Lang, The Antioch Review.  Just because this is a topic that might embarrass you does not give you the right to censor it. 216.189.209.130 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

If this is removed from Wikipedia, you will see an article in the media about how the Zionists control what gets published.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.209.130 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 

I think we should reconsider the following sentence in the lede of the article:

In 1939 he published a pamphlet as chairman of the American Federation of Peace that argued that Americans should be sterilized so that their children will no longer have to fight in foreign wars
The actual quote suggests that this isn't quite what Kaufman was saying. First, he prefaced it with the phrase "a possible plea", which suggests that he may not have been entirely serious. Second, his formulation seemed to be saying something like: "If you're going to fight in foreign wars than sterilize us" which is not quite the same as how its formulated here. We really know very little about what his ideas in 1939 actually were. Since we have so little to go on (the Time article which seems to be the source of all this doesn't even mention Kaufman by name and it also uses multiple ellipses) I'd much rather we didn't include this in the lede but rather quoted the Time article directly in the body of the article. GabrielF (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "through castration" from the sentence: "Two years later he shifted his focus to the forced mass-sterilization through castration of all German men under 65 and the sterilization of most German women under 45." This is simply inaccurate. Germany Must Perish states: "Sterilization is not to be confused with castration. It is a safe and simple operation, quite harmless and painless, neither mutilating nor unsexing the patient. Its effects are most often less distressing than vaccination and not more serious than a tooth extraction." No need to make Kaufman's ideas crazier than they really were. GabrielF (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Theodore N. Kaufman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sodabottle (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
1) The article doesn't state explicitly he is jewish? Any particular reason for this (i mean isnt his ethnicity relevant to his claim to fame?)
2) under the auspices of the "American Federation of Peace", an unknown entity of which he was the president and probably only member, Kaufman produced several publications. I dont see a citation for the "probably only member". The next citation is Kaufman's pamphlet "Passive Purchase". I dont think that would support this assertion.
3) The years 1942-86 are a blank. The article goes from his enlistment in US Army to his death 44 years later. With such a large gap, i dont think this would meet the "broad in its coverage" requirement. I realise it is difficult to get details after the brief period of fame is over. But still this is a large gap. Especially since there are three more war years to cover. Was there no mention of him/his works in nazi propaganda after 42?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

1) I do think its relevant and could be added to the first paragraph.
2) I'll see if I can track down a citation for this.
3) I don't know that there's much to say about Kaufman after the end of the war - Berel Lang states: "when the sequence of events he [Kaufman] set in motion ended, a little more than two years later, he disappeared from public sight as completely as he had been invisible before" I'm not sure that this section could be filled in without original research. The article does discuss the use of his book in Nazi propaganda through 1945, stating: "The Nazi propaganda ministry continued to publish pamphlets, posters and flyers on Kaufman's ideas through the end of the war, and also urged newspapers and public speakers to remind Germans of Kaufman's book." This sentence could probably be moved after the Hanover material so that the chronology is clearer and it could probably also be expanded a bit.GabrielF (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thats reasonable. Please add the berel lang cite above to say that "he disappeared from public sight" (or something of that effect) to cover those years in the article.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Review completed. If the 3 point above is incorporated into the text, the article can be promoted to GA status.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Has this been done? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I did a search myself and unfortunately found absolutely nothing on him post-1942; you may have to make a judgment call on its status here, I don't think any exists or any will be added. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok i closed the review as a failure. Its been over a month and the comments havent been fixed. --Sodabottle (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I just added the citation about his life after the war described above as well as some additional material about the later war years. I think the only outstanding citation issue is that he was probably the only member of the American Federation of Peace. I couldn't find a source for that, but the Time article on Germany Must Perish says: "Germany Must Perish! is his first book. "Strictly a one-man job" (he claims he has no organization, no help, no backers)" I don't know if that's sufficient for the claim about his earlier publications. If not, I can delete the sentence and add another sentence later saying that Kaufman claimed he had no organization or backers behind him. GabrielF (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. it would be better to remove the "only member" sentence and add the other one.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I looked again and the Randall Bytwerk article cited later makes the claim that he was likely the only member so I cited it explicitly. GabrielF (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I qualified the statement with that "likely" since I could find no information on the organization, and Kaufman operated alone in his later book.  Not 100% sure, though.  Bytwerk (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Great. That takes care of all the comments and i have closed the GAR as a success

Hi! I was wondering if there was any particular reason why the block quote in this article is located in the lead. It's a good quote for the article, but it looks like it would be far more fitting in section below. It's not only non-standard, but it seems to disrupt the flow of reading the article. I understand it higlights the importance of the subject to have it so far up, but we should be doing that through giving the facts.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to elaborate more on the reception of the works of T.N. Kaufman. Was he just a lunatic or was there a broader main stream reception of his thinking? --41.15.225.32 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So wikipedia has finally posted an article on Theodore Kaufman, to the distress of many of its editors I'm sure.  But in wikipedia's biased and Judeo-centric fashion, the article presents this racist war monger as a "pacifist."  Only the Jews of wikipedia could lie to such an extent that a man who writes a book advocating the destruction of a race could be portrayed as a pacifist.  And the whole time while Jews like Kaufman were spreading racist propaganda like this, pushing the USA into war, Hitler was repeatedly making rebuffed peace overtures to Churchill who was being paid by Jews to make war on Germany.  Germany didn't have to make propaganda on what the allies and in particular what the Jews were doing.  All they had to do was report the truth and when the truth is all laid out, its easy to understand why most of Europe (and the world) developed a hatred for the Jews equal to the hate the Jews had for Germans then, Palestinians and other Muslims today and different peoples throughout history.75.36.243.195 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's odd that an article on a man who proposed the genocide of the German people via forced sterilization doesn't include the word "genocide." --
98.148.115.161 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No such organization existed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:540:6B80:9C5A:B505:96C6:EEB2 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC) 

I really don't think he belongs in the category.  He was a theatrical ticket agent who self-published a book urging sterilization of the Germans.  He had no qualifications as a eugenicist. I'll remove it unless anyone objects. Bytwerk (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it. Bytwerk (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
what would be "qualification as a eugenicist"? a medical doctor? a psychologist? a sociologist? HE WAS A EUGENICIST, what else but extermination of a complete people do you need for that? I mean - what qualification did Hitler have? Is he only in charge of those deeds, a painters skills could proceed??—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.129.198 (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I followed your proposal and looked up what Wikipedia writes about Ignatiev. And  I don't see the connection.Rheinvolk (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how the two men connect, besides them being boogeymen for Nazis. Ignatiev fought against the social construct of "whiteness", and explicitly stated that his writings did not pertain to White people themselves. To compare this to Kaufman's racist and genocidal beliefs seems misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.22.195.200 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC) 

I guess the first male age should be corrected to "60":

Two years later he shifted his focus to the forced mass-sterilization of all German men under 65 and the sterilization of most German women under 45. This would eliminate "inbred Germanism," he proposed, thus solving a great deal of humanity's problems. He also promoted the distribution of Germany's lands among the neighboring countries. His effort was spearheaded by the self-publication of the book Germany Must Perish![3]
"Since Germans are the perennial disturbers of the world's peace ... they must be dealt with like any homicidal criminals. But it is unnecessary to put the whole German nation to the sword. It is more humane to sterilize them. The army groups, as organized units, would be the easiest and quickest to deal with. ... The population of Germany, excluding conquered and annexed territories, is about 70,000,000, almost equally divided between male and female. To achieve the purpose of German extinction it would be necessary to only sterilize some 48,000,000 -- a figure which excludes, because of their limited power to procreate, males over 60 years of age, and females over 45. 

Weapon X (talk, contribs) 18:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you "guess" this? Bryan Krippner (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)