![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have seen an old political cartoon in support of the American Party that, among many other things, depicted a boy holding a Bible and declaring that "we are determined to know nothing but this book to guide us in spiritual things." It was in print in a textbook, so I cannot produce the cartoon here, but are we certain that the origin of "know-nothing" is rooted in the secrecy of the movement exclusively? This cartoon seems to suggest otherwise. Rogue 9 09:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but i think there was another page on wikipedia for the Know-Nothing Party. I was researching just a week ago and pulled up a different page than this one. Has it been moved or collaborate with another page? I remember there being A LOT MORE infomation than what is on it now. NosmoKing 09:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
we need mention of anti-freemasonry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.54.96 ( talk) 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Use this section to discuss renaming the article to American Party (United States).
I agree that it looks odd in lists of parties and such, and therefore a split may be advisable. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion, there does seem to be support for a simpler name. I have moved to Know Nothing, partly because it was an unedited redirect, partly because I think it marginally better than Know Nothings (simpler linking) and Know-Nothing (simplicity, and Know-Nothing should really be an adjective, not a noun). I have left some redirects unedited, so that if someone prefers another variant, it can just be moved again. If anyone disagrees, feel free to move again; this is a proposal, but not worth putting through WP:RM when we've just discussed it, much less move warring. Septentrionalis 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Economist Paul Krugman, in a New York Times opinion piece dated August 7, 2008, writes
[K]now-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.” [1]
This usage doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic of this article. Krugman is riffing on the actual words, "know nothing", as opposed to the political movement that is formally called the American Party and is commonly known as the "Know Nothing" party. While his comment has some insight about current politics, I don't think it informs readers about 19th century politics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Hello, there is an article on the www.EncyclopediaofAlabama.org that might be of interest to this topic. http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1138 - It is Alabama specific, but might merit an external link?
Thanks, Justin -- Duboiju ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Know-Nothing movement was chiefly based on strident opposition to specific immigrants in particular, not just to immigration in general. On that basis I think that the epithet " anti-immigrant" would be correctly applied to them. Any thoughts? - Willmcw 02:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we have more than enough independent, reliable sources to justify a new section in the article on comparisons between KN and other political movements, including TPM. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
see second Chapter in a article by Encyclopedia Britannica [ [1]] - Christian Fandel 82.144.58.168 ( talk) 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw a link at the end of the article about the Know Nothings, but the article itself had no reference to them and the Tea Party Movement article didn't mention the Know Nothings, so I removed it. I also know that the Tea Party doesn't stand for the same ideals, so this link was erroneous. If the link is to be put back, at least mention the Tea Party in this article and the Know Nothings in the Tea Party article so that there is a reason for the reference link. 70.108.61.186 ( talk) 19:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
And so on. Will Beback talk 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Great discussion. I deleted the link to the TPM because it wasn't supported in the article and appeared to be inflammatory. I asked for a justification before it was restored, and based on the discussion above I don't see how the link can be justified. Historically, the anti-papism of the KN is linked to the KKK and the Democrat Party. Matthew Drabik ( talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The reference cited in the article (Wilentz) says that the Native American Party renamed itself the American Party in 1855. This reference says that the party renamed itself at its 1852 convention, when it nominated the slate of Webster and Washington, later replaced on Webster's death by Bloom and Coates.-- BillFlis ( talk) 11:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The article states: "Statewide, however, Republican Abraham Lincoln blocked the party from any successes". However, the modern Republican Party (of which Lincoln is considered a father-figure) was not formed until 1858, after the Whig Party was officially declared dead in 1856. This section should be changed to match the actual party affiliation of Lincoln at the time, or should be removed if no reference can be provided to this actually being the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.83.8 ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The article flags the reference to Timothy Egan with a superscript [who?]. Timothy Egan has his own Wikipedia entry. He is a writer and columnist for the New York Times, and his picture appears on the article by him that is referenced in the Know Nothing entry. 198.238.208.67 ( talk) 21:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the following passage, as a best guess, because the writing was too ambiguous (or meek) to discern the message. However, I have not read the book and so my rewrite may be a misinterpretation of the intent. I'm guessing that the opinion was derived from Nevins book about the pre- Civil War and that the Wikipedia author is apologizing for it as a weak reference; it seems fine. The passage includes a quote attributed to Allan Nevins: Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing 1852-1857 (1947) 2:467. I have deleted the footnote link here to simplify reading; the reference remains in the main article.
" Historian Allan Nevins says Fillmore was never a Know-Nothing or a nativist; but his opinion comes from a book about the Civil War, other historians of Know-Nothings and the 1850s . He was out of the country when the nomination came and had not been consulted about running. Furthermore:
He was not a member of the party; he had never attended an American [Know-Nothing] gathering. By no spoken or written word had he indicated a subscription to American tenets.
GeeBee60 ( talk) 15:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the Know-Nothing really a "far-right" party?
Know-Nothings support liberal democracy, the Revolutions of 1848 (as shown in the article), and generally subscribe to republicanism.
Maybe the reality is that American politics had no real far-right aside from maybe the interests of plantation-owners until the modern "far-right" was invented in the early 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE75:6FA0:3456:1E85:9B95:6425 ( talk) 18:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It's as if the article about ISIS were titled Daesh, or the article about Intact dilation and extraction were called Partial Birth Abortion. Call the party whatever it called itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.96.214 ( talk) 04:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Know Nothing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Evaluation of the KN movement as "far right" requires solid scholarship by reliable sources on the 1850s. Using a flimsy source like Cas Mudde, The Far Right in America (2017) will not suffice. Routledge the publisher describes this book as "This book collects Mudde's old and new blog posts, interviews and op-eds on the topic of the US far right, ranging from right-wing populists to neo-Nazi terrorists. The main emphasis of the book is on the two most important far right developments of the 21st century, the Tea Party and Donald Trump. Primarily aimed at a non-academic audience." Rjensen ( talk) 16:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Since John Wilkes Booth was perhaps the most prominent name in the Know Nothing party and since he killed the Republican President, it makes no sense to attach anything to do with Republicans or the Right to the Know Nothing party. That is just my opinion, but, I suspect the leftists that control wikipedia just do not care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:C000:E18A:4573:DCE3:B548:70A0 ( talk) 02:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Is a random unfriendly journalists slurring of Sarah Palin as a "Know Nothing" really worthy of inclusion in this article? I can see the value of including the William Kristol reference, he is an influential conservative criticizing his own party. However, after mentioning that it is a term commonly used to slur those you don't like, referencing some random talking head calling a member of a political party he opposes names hardly seems notable in the context of the obsolete party he is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.250.16 ( talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Because this article is well made and is true and could be vandalized or targeted by trolls. E man says E ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Despite using the "Native American Party" name, its membership consisted of the descendants of colonists or settlers and did not particularly include indigenous Native Americans. Well, back then those who are now frequently referred to as "native Americans" would've only been "Indians", so it's hardly surprising. Perhaps this remark could be put in the parentheses and edited to reflect this? 37.47.238.32 ( talk) 15:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The article reads: "In New York, in a four-way race, the Know-Nothing candidate ran third with 26%." State or city? In what state-wide or city-wide race? Who was the candidate? I suspect the author is talking about the gubernatorial race, with Daniel Ullman the standard-bearer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_election,_1854 However, it isn't clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBakerFineShoeMaker ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a poorly written biased hackjob with an agenda. Salon along with the others are not reputable sources. The "author" makes a pathetic attempt to tie Trump to the no nothing party. The entire mess should be disregarded as an opinion. 40.142.194.138 ( talk) 03:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ksheab22 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by HughCQuinlan ( talk) 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
How can the KNs be referred to as center-left? Perhaps consider removing the political position entirely since they don't fall into a category we would understand in modern times. 142.255.72.79 ( talk) 04:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the article reads: "Know Nothings are occasionally referred to as an antisemitic movement due to their zealous xenophobia and their religious bigotry."
I read the cited source, and it does not say this at all.
It also reads that the party was not "openly hostile towards Jews", which misleadingly suggests that they were hostile to Jews in private. This is also not in the source, and is also rather patently absurd, considering that the leader of the party was a Jewish congressman.
I am grateful to @ Tcr25 for reverting several of @ WikiCleanerMan's NPOV-violating edits, but I still think the revision I made earlier is superior, as it accurately reflects information from the cited sources, while the current version does not. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have seen an old political cartoon in support of the American Party that, among many other things, depicted a boy holding a Bible and declaring that "we are determined to know nothing but this book to guide us in spiritual things." It was in print in a textbook, so I cannot produce the cartoon here, but are we certain that the origin of "know-nothing" is rooted in the secrecy of the movement exclusively? This cartoon seems to suggest otherwise. Rogue 9 09:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but i think there was another page on wikipedia for the Know-Nothing Party. I was researching just a week ago and pulled up a different page than this one. Has it been moved or collaborate with another page? I remember there being A LOT MORE infomation than what is on it now. NosmoKing 09:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
we need mention of anti-freemasonry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.54.96 ( talk) 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Use this section to discuss renaming the article to American Party (United States).
I agree that it looks odd in lists of parties and such, and therefore a split may be advisable. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion, there does seem to be support for a simpler name. I have moved to Know Nothing, partly because it was an unedited redirect, partly because I think it marginally better than Know Nothings (simpler linking) and Know-Nothing (simplicity, and Know-Nothing should really be an adjective, not a noun). I have left some redirects unedited, so that if someone prefers another variant, it can just be moved again. If anyone disagrees, feel free to move again; this is a proposal, but not worth putting through WP:RM when we've just discussed it, much less move warring. Septentrionalis 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Economist Paul Krugman, in a New York Times opinion piece dated August 7, 2008, writes
[K]now-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.” [1]
This usage doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic of this article. Krugman is riffing on the actual words, "know nothing", as opposed to the political movement that is formally called the American Party and is commonly known as the "Know Nothing" party. While his comment has some insight about current politics, I don't think it informs readers about 19th century politics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
References
Hello, there is an article on the www.EncyclopediaofAlabama.org that might be of interest to this topic. http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1138 - It is Alabama specific, but might merit an external link?
Thanks, Justin -- Duboiju ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Know-Nothing movement was chiefly based on strident opposition to specific immigrants in particular, not just to immigration in general. On that basis I think that the epithet " anti-immigrant" would be correctly applied to them. Any thoughts? - Willmcw 02:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we have more than enough independent, reliable sources to justify a new section in the article on comparisons between KN and other political movements, including TPM. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
see second Chapter in a article by Encyclopedia Britannica [ [1]] - Christian Fandel 82.144.58.168 ( talk) 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw a link at the end of the article about the Know Nothings, but the article itself had no reference to them and the Tea Party Movement article didn't mention the Know Nothings, so I removed it. I also know that the Tea Party doesn't stand for the same ideals, so this link was erroneous. If the link is to be put back, at least mention the Tea Party in this article and the Know Nothings in the Tea Party article so that there is a reason for the reference link. 70.108.61.186 ( talk) 19:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
And so on. Will Beback talk 23:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Great discussion. I deleted the link to the TPM because it wasn't supported in the article and appeared to be inflammatory. I asked for a justification before it was restored, and based on the discussion above I don't see how the link can be justified. Historically, the anti-papism of the KN is linked to the KKK and the Democrat Party. Matthew Drabik ( talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The reference cited in the article (Wilentz) says that the Native American Party renamed itself the American Party in 1855. This reference says that the party renamed itself at its 1852 convention, when it nominated the slate of Webster and Washington, later replaced on Webster's death by Bloom and Coates.-- BillFlis ( talk) 11:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The article states: "Statewide, however, Republican Abraham Lincoln blocked the party from any successes". However, the modern Republican Party (of which Lincoln is considered a father-figure) was not formed until 1858, after the Whig Party was officially declared dead in 1856. This section should be changed to match the actual party affiliation of Lincoln at the time, or should be removed if no reference can be provided to this actually being the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.83.8 ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The article flags the reference to Timothy Egan with a superscript [who?]. Timothy Egan has his own Wikipedia entry. He is a writer and columnist for the New York Times, and his picture appears on the article by him that is referenced in the Know Nothing entry. 198.238.208.67 ( talk) 21:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the following passage, as a best guess, because the writing was too ambiguous (or meek) to discern the message. However, I have not read the book and so my rewrite may be a misinterpretation of the intent. I'm guessing that the opinion was derived from Nevins book about the pre- Civil War and that the Wikipedia author is apologizing for it as a weak reference; it seems fine. The passage includes a quote attributed to Allan Nevins: Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing 1852-1857 (1947) 2:467. I have deleted the footnote link here to simplify reading; the reference remains in the main article.
" Historian Allan Nevins says Fillmore was never a Know-Nothing or a nativist; but his opinion comes from a book about the Civil War, other historians of Know-Nothings and the 1850s . He was out of the country when the nomination came and had not been consulted about running. Furthermore:
He was not a member of the party; he had never attended an American [Know-Nothing] gathering. By no spoken or written word had he indicated a subscription to American tenets.
GeeBee60 ( talk) 15:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the Know-Nothing really a "far-right" party?
Know-Nothings support liberal democracy, the Revolutions of 1848 (as shown in the article), and generally subscribe to republicanism.
Maybe the reality is that American politics had no real far-right aside from maybe the interests of plantation-owners until the modern "far-right" was invented in the early 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE75:6FA0:3456:1E85:9B95:6425 ( talk) 18:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It's as if the article about ISIS were titled Daesh, or the article about Intact dilation and extraction were called Partial Birth Abortion. Call the party whatever it called itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.96.214 ( talk) 04:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Know Nothing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Evaluation of the KN movement as "far right" requires solid scholarship by reliable sources on the 1850s. Using a flimsy source like Cas Mudde, The Far Right in America (2017) will not suffice. Routledge the publisher describes this book as "This book collects Mudde's old and new blog posts, interviews and op-eds on the topic of the US far right, ranging from right-wing populists to neo-Nazi terrorists. The main emphasis of the book is on the two most important far right developments of the 21st century, the Tea Party and Donald Trump. Primarily aimed at a non-academic audience." Rjensen ( talk) 16:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Since John Wilkes Booth was perhaps the most prominent name in the Know Nothing party and since he killed the Republican President, it makes no sense to attach anything to do with Republicans or the Right to the Know Nothing party. That is just my opinion, but, I suspect the leftists that control wikipedia just do not care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:C000:E18A:4573:DCE3:B548:70A0 ( talk) 02:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Is a random unfriendly journalists slurring of Sarah Palin as a "Know Nothing" really worthy of inclusion in this article? I can see the value of including the William Kristol reference, he is an influential conservative criticizing his own party. However, after mentioning that it is a term commonly used to slur those you don't like, referencing some random talking head calling a member of a political party he opposes names hardly seems notable in the context of the obsolete party he is referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.250.16 ( talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Because this article is well made and is true and could be vandalized or targeted by trolls. E man says E ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Despite using the "Native American Party" name, its membership consisted of the descendants of colonists or settlers and did not particularly include indigenous Native Americans. Well, back then those who are now frequently referred to as "native Americans" would've only been "Indians", so it's hardly surprising. Perhaps this remark could be put in the parentheses and edited to reflect this? 37.47.238.32 ( talk) 15:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The article reads: "In New York, in a four-way race, the Know-Nothing candidate ran third with 26%." State or city? In what state-wide or city-wide race? Who was the candidate? I suspect the author is talking about the gubernatorial race, with Daniel Ullman the standard-bearer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_state_election,_1854 However, it isn't clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBakerFineShoeMaker ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a poorly written biased hackjob with an agenda. Salon along with the others are not reputable sources. The "author" makes a pathetic attempt to tie Trump to the no nothing party. The entire mess should be disregarded as an opinion. 40.142.194.138 ( talk) 03:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ksheab22 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by HughCQuinlan ( talk) 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
How can the KNs be referred to as center-left? Perhaps consider removing the political position entirely since they don't fall into a category we would understand in modern times. 142.255.72.79 ( talk) 04:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the article reads: "Know Nothings are occasionally referred to as an antisemitic movement due to their zealous xenophobia and their religious bigotry."
I read the cited source, and it does not say this at all.
It also reads that the party was not "openly hostile towards Jews", which misleadingly suggests that they were hostile to Jews in private. This is also not in the source, and is also rather patently absurd, considering that the leader of the party was a Jewish congressman.
I am grateful to @ Tcr25 for reverting several of @ WikiCleanerMan's NPOV-violating edits, but I still think the revision I made earlier is superior, as it accurately reflects information from the cited sources, while the current version does not. Harry Sibelius ( talk) 03:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)