Talk:Avigdor Miller

He is not notable for his work at that yeshiva, if he is popular its only for his tapes due to his lectures so this is the main lead not some small relative unnoticeable job he held for a few years in chaim berlin. which he was thrown out of and the head of that yeshiva did not even attend his funeral although he lives just a few blocks down--יודל 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. It's WP:OR to state that he gained world renown for haredi Jews. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I fixed that concern.--יודל 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, and totally irrelevant, he served for 20 years as Mashgiach. That's not some non-event. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant because this job was not that big, he never spoke public speeches and never was considered a real mentor or rabbi there he was a plain door man to punish students who came late to Bais Hamedrash, when he tried influencing Yeshiva policy regarding science studioes they throw him out like a dog, and shamed him publicly by not attending his funeral which was the biggest mass of Jews assembled in modern history only third to rav feinstein and rav yoel titalbaum, thus making this job factor a non unimportant period which nobody is proud and tries to especially note, this is a unimportant detail in his overall noticeability factor so it does not belong in the lead section.--יודל 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look again, the lead already states that he was an author and lecturer, so your added bit is redundant. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i did not recognize that, i fixed it as well.--יודל 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Removing the Chaim Berlin thing is wrong. He served there for twenty years, that is way notable to be included. 2) You don't need to re-write the lead. It was fine as is. 3) Since English is not your first language, I will point out that accumulate is not really what you're trying to say. 4) A lead should not have that much detail. The way it is now is fine, and anything else can go in the article, if it's warranted. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot disagree with u more, his claim to fame must be in the lead, and his job at chaim berlin should be deleted from the lead section. i will await third party opinion on this, since we have both expressed our opinion very clear.--יודל 18:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His claim to fame is in the lead. It mentions his being an author and lecturer. Secondly, being a mashgiach for 20 years is a big chunk of change. something like that should certainly be in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was not the Mashgiach in the litvish sense of the word so this job wasn't that memorable, i don't believe it should be in the lead of his biography.--יודל 19:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're a baki in Litvisher yeshivas and their jobs? He was a mashgiach there for 20 years. That's a fact. 20 years is a good enough chunk to warrant a mention in the lead. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to both of you. Per a request for a third opinion, I'm weighing in on this. I'd like to point out that both of you are approaching a violation of the

Doing some research on this, even on Wikipedia, reveals how wrong and strange Yidisheryid (talk · contribs) edits are and how he will stop at nothing to twist the truth.

User:Yidisheryid says that Rabbi Miller:

• "is not notable for his work at that yeshiva" (Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin) when in fact it was the head of that yeshiva, Rabbi
  Yitzchok Hutner (1906-1980) who plucked Rabbi Miller out of obscurity as a small town rabbi and set him up in the prestigious post of mashgiach ruchani
  of the yeshiva, a post which Rabbi Miller held for over twenty years and which launched his fame in the Haredi world.
• "he is popular its only for his tapes due to his lectures" -- how so?, when there is notability and popularity, and they are being confused here. Haredi rabbis are not into running "popularity" contests. What is important is if they held senior posts or were/are recognized as spiritual leaders via their influece and/or writings, which was the case with Rabbi Miller while he was mashgiach at Chaim Berlin.
• "some small relative unnoticeable job he held for a few years in chaim berlin" -- is a blatantly false assertion because the position was major, Rabbi Miller literally ruled the daily running of the yeshiva in his time, as was his mandate (while Rabbi Hutner, as rosh yeshiva focused on his select students and his famous ma'amarim.) There was a serious agreement between Rabbi Miller and Rabbi Hutner about a divison of duties, powers and responsibilities and Rabbi Miller held that very public job for over twenty years!
• "the head of that yeshiva did not even attend his funeral although he lives just a few blocks down" --huh? Which head? Rabbi Hutner died twenty one years before Rabbi Miller, so how does that add up? Pure slander. If what is meant is the next rosh yeshiva, Rabbi
  WP:NOR
  .
• "he was a plain door man to punish students who came late to Bais Hamedrash" -- this statement is utter rubbish because as the mashgiach Rabbi Miller spoke privately or publicly to any student he wished about anything he chose to and he was very much a mentor and leader to all students during his tenure. He was appointed to supervise students (which is what the word "mashgiach" means: "supervisor"!) and not to "spoke public speeches" which was the job of the rosh yeshiva/s. Rabbi Miller did give select charburas ("group meetings") to students who wished to follow his ways even closer. He was an integral and major part of the yeshiva. Nobody threw anybody out like a dog. There was an amicable parting of the ways over other issues outside of the yeshiva, relating to Rabbinic politics (nobody knows for sure what the real issues were behind closed doors) which happend only when the yeshiva relocated to a different neighborhood in any case, but he was never thrown out or banned in any way. Some still read his books and preach his ideas there! He went back and was welcomed many times after he left to run his own community full time. Sheesh.
• "claim to fame" was fourfold: Mashgiach at Chaim Berlin Yeshiva, author of his unique books, recording and spreading of his tapes, and running his shull and community. He never attended conventions. And he disagreed with a number of the policies of Agudath Israel. In Satmar he is held in high regard by some, especially since Rabbi Miller was an early eloquent voice against the influences of Zionism. So those who wish, try to read his books. He was an "anti-Zionist" which is why some may like him. But Rabbi Miller's life and family had nothing to do with Satmar. Rabbi Miller came from a Jewish non-religious family as a boy in Baltimore. He went to YU, then to the Slabodka yeshiva in Lithuania. He married one of the Slabodka rabbi's (Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Lessin) daughters. Rabbi Lessin later worked for Yeshiva University, decidely not anti-Zionist. It was thanks to Rabbi Hutner only that Rabbi Miller was saved from the oblivion of being a totally unkown and unpopular small town rabbi in Chelsea, Massachusetts (he was fighting with his communuty, and it was they who wanted him out), and he was then miraculously catapulted overnight into a major position of the highest order and responsibilty in any yeshiva that of mashgiach ruchani based on what Rabbi Hutner had heard about him from people in Slabodka. Rabbi Hutner chose him because Rabbi Miller was first a great Torah scholar, and had "guts" with lots of personality and a way with words that they hit there target and he knew that Rabbi Miller would make a huge impact and impression on the yeshiva's student body, and so he did. And as is normal, the tenures of faculty come to an end and that allows others to be appointed. But it does not diminish or call for a demeaning of Rabbi Miller's record at, and contribution to, the Chaim Berlin yeshiva as mashgiach ruchani.
• "He was not the Mashgiach in the litvish sense of the word so this job wasn't that memorable" -- is not true. While in Eastern Europe the role of mashigach ruchani was very powerful, sometimes more powerful than rosh yeshiva, and in America the rosh yeshivas have grown in influence. But that does not in any way diminish from the fact that being a mashgiach ruchani in one of the world's oldest and best known yeshivas is a very major and notable position and must be mentioned.

So it's pretty obvious that User:Yidisheryid is very misguided about his edits. IZAK 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Rabbi Yitzchok Hutner did not make famous rabbi miller, nor did he became more famous at that point. It was rabbi Hutner who tried to capitalize on rabbi miller not the other way around, keep in mind that the home town where rabbi miller was a Rabbi had at some point in time the most Jews in America. and the local papers have even reported on rabbi milers work there, it was only after he came to new york that he went into relative silence. Rabbi miller has tens of books and thousands of followers, rabbi hutner while considered a great pioneer in opening that yeshiva does not have that Noteability at all, not even close. Rabbi miller did something that no rabbi has done, he stayed true to his principals and wasnt afraid of nothink, he was pushed out of rabbi Hutners yeshiva and he was unwelcome everywhere because they did not like his open un-political style of saying the word of G-d. --יודל 22:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. rabbi miller was a very unknown leader while he was in that job, there are many many peaple who have hold his job there and arnt worthy of an article, it was a relative un-publick position, and he held many positions more important and honerbe that this particular job, he was a real educater with shiurim in bais yakov over in chaim berlin he did not teach anything. he did not come to fame only throgh his tapes and lectures.--יודל 22:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rav ahron shechter was not by the funeral. and IZZAK cannot find any source to his false claim.
4. Rav Perlow was not by his funeral and does not represent cahim berlin. nor does he have any relation with chaim berlin yeshiva, user Izzak does not have any source to this false claim, He did speak at a a later event said some kind words about rabbi miller in the name of Agudes Yisruel and in the name of Yeshivas Chaim berlin, so in essence, if user IZZAK says himself thet rabbi miller wasn't part of the Agudas Yisruel and that rabbi perlow did speak about his relation with agudas yisruel, why would he say that rabbi Perlow is indeed telling the truth about Yeshivas Chaim berlin?
5. rabbi miller did not have any eading role as IZZAK claims, its a lie, and he hasn't brought any source, he was a minimal supervisor that the students should not come late, non of his followers are chaim berlin students and they are not fond of him, indeed his only fame came from the tapas he gave in his own shull, and only people outside of Chaim berlin did atent that shmozzen, his noteblity has nothing to do with that job in that yeshiva.--יודל 22:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, (1) Rabbi Aaron Schechter was at one time a : student of, colleague and friend of Rabbi Miller. It is known to those who knew them. (2) Rabbi Perlow was a full-time student at Yeshiva Chaim Berlin and its Kollel Gur Aryeh and he was a public disciple of Rav Hutner. (3) Rabbi Perlow was one of the speakers at Rabbi Miller's funeral, that's a fact. (4) I did not say anywhere that Rabbi Perlow spoke about Rabbi Miller's "relation" with Agudath Israel! All I said was that Rabbi Perlow, a disciple of Rabbi Hutner and Chaim Berlin yeshiva, spoke at the funeral of Rabbi Miller, and they were words of praise for and about Rabbi Miller. Rabbi Perlow did not talk about any politics, only about the greatness of Rabbi Miller. (5) For twenty one years Rabbi Miller was the mashgiach ruchani at Chaim Berlin yeshiva. During that time he became a legend in his lifetime in the yeshiva and outside of it (even if it has been a long time and some may not know this or deliberately wish to block it out.) It was then that he began to formulate his ideas for his books based on his discussions with students. (6) Twenty years on the job as masgiach ruchani at one of the top yeshivas in America is notable by any yardstick. (7) Without Rabbi Hutner, Rabbi Miller would have been out on the street and who knows what the Haredi world may have lost if not for Rabbi Hutner's brilliant intervention and act of skillful leadership. I have to go, it's almost Shabbat. IZAK 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YY, your statements are contradictory and also false. How could R' Hutner want to capitalize on R' Miller by making R' Miller a mashgiach, if he was a nobody? Secondly, you state that R' Miller was a rabbi in a community that had the largest number of Jews in America. That is false. No city in Massachusetts EVER had the most Jews in America. Yossiea ^(talk) 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Chelsea Massachusetts had tens of thousands of jewish famemlies it was not like IZAAK makes it as a smal town, also i did not say R' Miller was a nobody. thats what IZZAK says, i say he was an angel and the bigest jew america ever had, but he wasnt known and was never recognised, R' Hutner did saw in him the greatness and he hired him for that job. But the job has nothing to do with R' Milers greatness and therefore should not be part of the lead--יודל 12:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that he was a rav in a town which at one point in time had the most Jews in America. That is false. Secondly, the fact remains that he was mashgiach for 20 years. That is notable enough to be in the lead. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YY, I just want to say thanks. It is because of people like you and Daniel and others like you that scare away editors with your pushing your POV across. You ruined this article with your edits. You have taken a pretty good article and just mangled it to no end with many nonsensical edits. You state on your page that English is not your mamme lushon, well can you please then leave the English wiki alone? I'm not saying this as an attack, but many of your edits make no sense. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal attack, i love it when u do nothing all day but running around deleting articles together with the other name yeshiva, keep on exposing yourself, to the point: i have added 16 important edits if u don't like it lets talk or if you find something improper in language just fix it and don't talk. good luck my friend.--יודל 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category "Creationists" was added. There's a statement in the article to support it, and certainly he like essentially all Haredi rabbis would have been an opponent of evolution, but there needs to be some documentation that he was significant enough in this respect to warrant the category. DGG (talk)

most of his work is indeed in this regard i will make in my business to reference his books, meanwhile i am busy getting the more basic biographical stuff in here as u can see. Also i don't know if he was original in those works but he surely helped further the creationist agenda between Jews through so many of his thousands of lectures in this regards he was unique then all other hareidi rabbis, who are shy from quoting evolutionists, he quoted them openly and frequently and tried to dispute their claims of evolution without a G-d.--יודל 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from his works he seems more outspoken about it than other rabbis. --Eliyak T·C 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section isn't entirely accurate. The sefer the information is from, I beleive, was written by others from his shiurim. I have heard the context for the first issue, which I hope to put up when i can find the exact source, and it's very different from how it sounds. --173.54.14.108 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section should be removed. First, there is no source given to indicate these controversies are anything more than problems a reader had. Second, the "issues" are incorrect. The first issue, Rav Miller zt"l's alledged trivializing of spoyusal abuse, was actually talking about the repairing process, and only said that the hurt spouse (wife in this example) should accept sincere regret and attempts to repair the rrelationship, not that it should just be accepted. He also uses many harsh terms for people who abuse their spouses. The second isssue, regarding beating children, was actually a quote from a Sefer/book from some centuries ago, about the type of disciplining that was accepted then. There was nothing I saw about it still being a good idea today. --173.54.14.108 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "bibliography" section (should be called "list of works", in my opinion to have congruency with articles such as the one on Akiva Tatz) is missing the publication dates of several of Rav Miller's books. If anyone can supply this information--would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.85.18 (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the executive director of Simchas Hachaim Publishing, the official publisher of Rabbi Miller's book and tapes, a division of Yeshiva Gedolah Bais Yisroel, under the direction of the Miller family.

I have no special interest in contributing to WikiPedia, however I have joined this wiki page for the sole purpose of providing accurate information about Rabbi Miller.

Note that the following titles by B. Miller are unauthorized, and the author was forbidden by Bais Din from publishing or selling them: "Thursday Nights with Rabbi Miller vol. 1 & 2" and "Rabbi Avigdor Miller conducts the Seder." I will not permit these to be added to the Bibliiography list (they were already removed once by Wikipedia staff, June 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baisyisroel (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930155117/http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/139/A_Giant_Departs_-_The_Death_of_Rav_Avigdor_Miller,_ZT%22L_(1909-2001).html to http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/139/A_Giant_Departs_-_The_Death_of_Rav_Avigdor_Miller%2C_ZT%22L_(1909-2001).html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080506135036/http://www.jewishpress.com:80/displayContent_new.cfm?contentid=16510&mode=a&contentname=Rav_Avigdor_Miller:_The_Later_Years&recnum=4&sectionid=14 to http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?contentid=16510&mode=a&contentname=Rav_Avigdor_Miller:_The_Later_Years&recnum=4&sectionid=14

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

The article as it's stood for a while says "see also R' Samson Raphael Hirsch" at the bottom. Propose we delete that ... I'm not seeing a particular connection to RSRH; unless it's "for an example of an Orthodox rabbi with very different hashkafos ...". I don't know who exactly put that up when or why. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.109.24 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm going ahead and deleting the "see also R' Hirsch"; if someone feels it adds to the article, feel free to revert. For now I think its sole purpose is "see for contrast" ... but a novice reader glancing through the article would just be confused. 108.18.109.24 (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in Judaism it is very disrespectful to refer to a great rabbi like Rabbi Avigdor Miller as "Avigdor Miller". He should be referred to as "Rabbi Avigdor Miller" or as "Rav Avigdor Miller". Proposal to refer to him as such in the entire article. 67.81.163.55 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing close to a consensus that he was a great rabbi; many consider him a despicable human being. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you care to source that negative characterization, I would suggest that you strike it, lest the WP community develops any concerns vis-à-vis your neutrality when editing this article. StonyBrook (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentences are subjective or making evaluations based on quotes taken out of context: "[Rabbi Miller is] most prominently known for instigating and invigorating extreme right-wing politics in American Orthodox Jewry"- This is fully subjective and not based on objective research and fact. Just to make a point, over 70,000 people per week currently (as of August 2022) read a weekly publication of his lectures and I assure you they would not agree with this characterization of what Rabbi Miller is "most prominently known for".

The sentence "Miller believed that black people were inferior to white people" is again fully subjective and not based on objective research and fact. See this source https://torasavigdor.org/rav-avigdor-miller-on-minority-jokes/ where he clearly states "to make leitzanus of [make fun of] people because they’re black or brown doesn’t make sense at all. Being black or brown is no sin. You can’t make leitzanus [fun] about that."

"He criticized the Emancipation Proclamation, saying that it would have been better for African-Americans to have endured another 50 to 100 years of slavery in order to 'civilize' them" "Miller was a supporter of police brutality against those he perceived to be criminals or members of an inferior race." It is obvious to anyone who has studied Rabbi Miller's works at length that he was saying these words facetiously, supporting a conservative viewpoint of law and order. These were not formal quotes or opinions. The contibutor of these lines is making a subjective evaluation and taking quotes out of context. It is also telling that the 2nd source quoted is a book of Q&A that was not authorized by Rabbi Miller or his family to be published, further reflecting the notion that these were not meant to be taken literally or published broadly.

One must keep in mind that Rabbi Miller has over 1400 (!) recorded lectures. Most were given at his synagogue to a relatively small crowd. It is unfair to take random quotes from a recording and make broad characterizations without understanding the full context of the time, location, and manner/style/tone in which the words were said.

Rabbi Miller was also a prolific author and never wrote words like these. This is much more telling than quotes taken out of context. Hashomayim (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can prove that 70,000 people per week actually read the publication (the number might be referring to an email blast) I don't understand how you can profess to know the thoughts of thousands of individuals. Secondly, I am sure you realize that it is possible to simultaneously believe that people from other races are inferior, while also admonishing students about disparaging said people. Thirdly, the rabbi expounded upon these ideas in a public setting, where they were recorded and sometimes later transcribed. I am not sure why it matters if the books were authorized or not; the public would have rejected these books if they suspected that the material was tampered with or misrepresented in any real way. StonyBrook _babble 23:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 70,000 people reading the weekly publication, the publication itself discloses that 17,000 are sent via email. The other 55,000 are hard copies sent around the world. Seems significant to me. You are correct, I cannot profess to know their thoughts, it's just a logical, good-faith assumption that they would disagree with the broad negative characterizations.

Regarding your second point- I suppose you are correct. My point is that his statement about not disparaging said people throws into question the statement that he believed they were inferior. He never explicity said that, so making a statement of that nature is at least somewhat based on opinion unless it can be 100% proven.

Regarding the unauthorized publication of books- there actually was an outcry about them. The family and organization who owns his material took the publisher to a Jewish court to stop their publication. Hashomayim (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm sure you'll disagree, but I understood his statement "Being black or brown is no sin" to mean that there is nothing inferior about being black or brown. In other words, he wasn't only admonishing his students about disparaging said people. He was saying there is nothing to disparage. Hashomayim (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual - but in a good way, in my view, at least - to see "chavurah," rather than "chaburah," which has an entirely different meaning: a bruise or wound (e.g., Shemos 21:25).

Thus, "chavurah," not "chaburah," in this meaning (company, association, party) is the grammatically correct form.

But these days we almost always see "chaburah" even in this context.

It is interesting to note that "chavurah" actually supports *both* meanings; see Yeshayahu 53:5. But if there is any evidence that that crossover goes also in the opposite direction, I am not aware of it. Toddcs (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a serious student of Rabbi Miller, I think it's a disgrace that the legacy/views section focuses purely on his most controversial opinions, as if this article is a tabloid. His most widely expressed, repeated and emphasized view was on the good in seeing and appreciating God in His creations, mainly nature. He circled back to this talking point hundreds of times throughout his lectures and books. Additionally, character improvement was a huge focus, including but not limited to kindness, awareness/love/awe of God, loving one's fellow, being aware of ones actions, peace in the home, finding good company, etc. Generally, in adding this to the article I'd just refer to religious character improvement, or something similar. These 2 views should be added to the article, I will work on an addition with sources etc. not-withstanding objections that may be made in the replies here. Additionally, in terms of legacy, the article leaves out a good portion of his legacy. Subject to objection, I will work on a mention of the weekly pamphlet with a dialogue compiled from his speeches e-mailed and distributed in print worldwide. The pamphlet itself claims over 50,000 prints are distributed weekly. Also, I would like to add mention to how his tapes are still widely listened to in modern audio form, subject to objection. All will be sourced, as per WP guidelines. I would also like to combine the two statements currently quoted on African Americans into one paragraph in the general format of 'Although he said "X", he also said "X", indicating 'X'.' JoeJShmo (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nycarchitecture212 removed this paragraph:

He criticized the

African-Americans to have endured another 50 to 100 years of slavery in order to "civilize" them.^[1][2]

I can cite some other things Miller said on slavery, which many people would consider very offensive, TAPE # 606 (August 1986):

Harriet Beecher Stowe – she’s famous for writing that big book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Uncle Tom’s Cabin caused the civil war in America. It inflamed the minds against slavery. It depicted the slaves as suffering terribly and there were masters who whipped and beat them; every kind of wickedness was performed by the white man on the poor black. And therefore, it caused a wave of anger against slavery and that’s why the Civil War took place and slavery was abolished then.

But you must know, that book is full of lies from the beginning to the end. You might not believe me. I’m telling you – the slaves were happier in their slave cabins than the blacks are in Harlem in the ghettos where they live..

SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just to add one other point – the tape 606 I quoted, although it doesn't have the specific comment about the Emancipation Proclamation to which the Tablet refers, does argue that slavery benefited African-Americans by "civilising" them. Given Miller's belief that slavery benefited African-Americans in this way, the claim that he said that more slavery would have given them more of that benefit would be consistent with the rest of his beliefs. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the portrait (which I understand Wikipedia is licensed to use) has been replaced by a picture of his grave. The standard for biographical articles is that the infobox contains a picture of a person, not a picture of their grave. While photographs are preferred to portraits, many articles do contain portraits (especially for historical figures who lived before photography). A photograph Wikipedia is licensed to use would be ideal, but in the absence of such a photograph, a portrait is still better than a grave image. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]