User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	129	0	1	100	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	6 days, 11 hours	no	report

Auld Lang Syne

SDUSA convention links

Hi. I've uploaded the NYT stuff to my server: http://www.marxisthistory.org/personal/721227-sdusa-news.pdf, http://www.marxisthistory.org/personal/721228-sdusa-news.pdf, http://www.marxisthistory.org/personal/721231-sdusa-news.pdf, http://www.marxisthistory.org/personal/730101-sdusa-news.pdf. Hopefully those links work, let me know if you have a problem. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Reviewing the quotes from Harrington on the DSOC page, I'm beginning to accept (SDUSA-member) Paul Feldman's analysis that the "irreconcilable disagreement" was the working-class (AFL-CIO) versus middle-class (Withdrawal activists in the McGovern campaign) issue; they could have reached a compromise on the Vietnam War. As usual, Bogdan Denitch has some comments worth considering, about MH's difficulty with breaking with his associates (on the DSA org's page about Isserman's MH biography).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that the mildly Trotish, moderately Christian, and irrepressibly catchy (Paul Heaton's) Beautiful South broke up because of "irreconcilable similarities"? ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

Tom Kahn was an organization genius who advanced social-democratic politics around the world, particularly in the USA.

(I think that Mayer Zald and _ Thompson would have enjoyed discussing him from the standpoint of their resource mobilization theory of social movements, which was often associated with the University of Michigan's Sociology Department.)

Because of his open (but personal) homosexuality, and my ignorance and inexperience, I requested reviews of that section in particular. Turnabout being fair play, I was delighted to respond to a request to look at a debate about the Stonewall rebellion, whose resolution involved reviewing an article written by a Professor (and former undergraduate) at UM's Sociology Department.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Kahn

The Solidarity was supported by Tom Kahn, who testified on behalf of the AFL–CIO to the US Congress. The picture displays the 21 demands of Solidarity.

• ... that Tom Kahn organized American unions' $300,000 aid to the Polish labor union Solidarity in 1980–1981, despite Secretary of State Muskie's warnings that this aid might provoke a new Soviet invasion? 13 June 2011 501 Visitors

Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Kudos on this one--a good hook, an interesting guy, and a great addition to the wiki. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! James Miller's Democracy is in the Streets recorded Kahn's being menaced by a man, in Irving Howe's words, in whose "soul" had seeped some of the "totalitarian poisons" of the last century. Kahn and impressionable youth deserve better.

Kahn's work in the civil-rights movement and to help Solidarity deserves to be remembered. I only wish that he and Michael Harrington had lived long enough to reconcile, the way that Steve Max and MH did and in the spirit of Rachelle Horowitz's memorial article, which records the depth of their friendship and suggests the pain of their estrangement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Socialist Party USA

copied from late addition to closed and archived review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we had an edit conflict. the Review wasn't archived when I wrote my review. Your too quick closure (a few hours before, or at least the previous day) was also contested, and should have been reversed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Review

(Sorry for the 10>7 day delay in drafting this.)

This article falls short of meeting the following criteria for good article—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The second paragraph of the lede illustrates the article's need for copy-editing:

The party is officially committed to left-wing democratic socialist ideas. The Socialist Party USA, along with its predecessors, has been met with varying support. Some attribute this to the party having to compete with the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively and judicially entrenched two-party system.

This quote reveals other problems, particularly POV regarding "the" 2-"party" system. There is a huge literature on the question "Why no socialism in America?", which is just igored in favor of the party members' fantasies.

The most egregious problems concern reliable sources and NPOV:

Verifiable with no original research:

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

In 1958, the Trotskyist Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman dissolved to join the Socialist Party of America. Shachtman, whose politics had changed since his days as a Trotskyist leader, argued both for militant opposition to Soviet-style communism and that the Socialist Party should work within the Democratic Party. By 1972 Shachtman's Unity Caucus had taken control of the Socialist Party and blocked a resolution opposing the Vietnam War. In the 1972 presidential election, Shachtman's caucus initially backed hawkish Cold Warrior Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, then adopted AFL-CIO President George Meany's position of neutrality between the two candidates nominated by the major parties.

In response, two groups broke off: the Coalition Caucus led by Michael Harrington supported antiwar Democrat George McGovern and went on to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (later becoming the Democratic Socialists of America), while the left-wing Debs Caucus backed People's Party anti-war candidate Benjamin Spock. The Debs Caucus formed the Union for Democratic Socialism, which officially reconstituted the Socialist Party USA in 1973, when the Shachtmanites who remained in the Socialist Party re-named their organization Social Democrats USA. Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA.

I removed some of the most egregious errors and POV biases in this account, but it is still written from the perspective of an enthusiast of McReynold's faction, which was the smallest of the three so small that it is often ignored in accounts of the name change to SDUSA. (For example, Harrington's memoirs ignore it. The phrase "numerous local and state branches" participated in the reconstitution is wishful thinking. The crucial fact that is not mentioned is that the convention voted on proposals, and the heroes of this tale, McReynolds and Harrington, lost every time. It, like much of the conspiracy websites of the far right and far left, attributes everything to Shachtman, who was roughly 70 at the time, and fails to mention any of the other leadership: For example, the notorious ex-Trotskyists and followers of Shachtman (sarcasm), A. Philip Randolph and the chairman Bayard Rustin. This is just not serious, as any honest and knowledgeable editor should readily admit.

There is no discussion of civil-rights work by the SPUSA: The majority of the SP civil-rights leadership stayed in the SP when it changed its name to SDUSA; however, James Farmer and others joined Harrington's DSOC.

The article fails to cite conventional, academic, historical references on these histories, but rather cites the Mooney controlled Washington Times! (I have not read Busky's book, and I would ask that knowledgeable editors check whether Busky has identified himself as a member of McReynolds's SP, the way Isserman has identified himself as a member of the DSA of Harrington (RIP).)

There are other NPOV/Reliability problems For example, it is written like many "in world" WP articles, written by fans of science-fiction novels and comic books. For example, it seems to be rather close to the Party's own description of itself, rather than a NPOV account based on disinterested academics, or using accounts by major newspapers (as opposed to local newspapers who print news releases).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rude message

I have posted these here as that GAR is closed. Which bit of "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion." do you not understand? Please open a new GAR, following the instructions at WP:GAR if you feel strongly about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, stop acting like an asshole. You closed it without notifying me. We had an edit conflict, while I was adding it.

You should be more concerned with NPOV and COI violations than with giving me attitude.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please moderate your language. There is no requirement to notify people who have commented on a GAR. There were no comments in the last 10 days, although you stated on 22 June that you would add comments in one week. Please renominate with your reasons. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't come to my page and ask me an insulting rhetorical question. Either apologize or leave.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dwight Macdonald

You're right in your comment on my user page: Macdonald did say that he would choose the west if forced to take sides (as you say, it was in a debate with Norman Mailer in 1952). I thought it safer to remove the whole paragraph as unsourced, and I apologize for removing a legitimate passage. Perhaps you could feel free to restore it, with a source and date? There are plenty of references to it online. Since this is a point that you made, I would feel uncomfortable taking it over as my own. Incidentally, it's odd that, apparently, one can't figure out from the page history who it was who added the mythical reference. Perhaps that revision was removed from the record along with other revisions by the same vandal. Macspaunday (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Macspaunday! You have great tastes in authors and great WP spirit in insisting on sourcing and editing in a team spirit. I added a quick reference, with sloppy formatting, I'm afraid. I am tired and need to go out for a few hours. (OHIO Only Handle It Once) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I regret ending my summary with a crack about it taking a few seconds on Google. I'm tired. (I've been finishing an algorithmic paper today, besides off and on editing here, and my eyes and brain are fried!) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the crack, so no apology required. - I've now edited the paragraph to clarify the date, the fact that he said (not wrote) the comment, and that it's documented that he later repudiated the debate-style either/or statement, which was never his style. I'm now finished with this - it all got started because I noticed that unlikely reference to the non-existent "Aeron Potter." I certainly didn't intend to get into an edit dispute. Please feel free to revise or revert my edits without any complaint from me! Macspaunday (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

After writing this, I went back and added Macdonald's printed, published statement of choosing the West, which is a stronger citation than a quotation from a spoken debate. Finally done now, and am not watching the Macdonald page. Macspaunday (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Macspaunday! Primary sources feed the minds of our serious readers, and secondary sources slow the heat death of the universe, at least by slowing chaos on WP. I suppose that Macdonald would have never chosen Soviet communism, given his declaration of uncompromising opposition after the Warsaw Uprising, although he may have had his doubts about the West. (BTW, I agree that some skepticism is in order about RR, when he was on the extreme left and later when he was on the zealous right, altough he has always been serious.) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stonewall riots

The Stonewall, a bar in part of the building where the Stonewall Inn was located. The building and the surrounding streets have been declared a National Historic Landmark.

I'm sure both of us would welcome your comments regards The local press and national gay press covered the event extensively. Pjefts (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Be still my beating heart! I may be perhaps the greatest Nordic fan of the Professor Armstrong:

• Armstrong, Elizabeth A.; Crage, Suzanna M. (2006). "Movements and memory: The making of the Stonewall myth" (PDF). American Sociological Review. 71 (5): 724–751. doi:10.1177/000312240607100502. JSTOR 25472425. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Armstrong, Elizabeth A. (2002). Forging gay identities: Organizing sexuality in San Francisco, 1950–1994. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226026949.

I was delighted to help. (00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC))

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No Wikipedia for old men

Malice_____Thought seems like a code-less and cowardly Anton Chigurh.

And now we have a user publicizing the name of a rape victim /complainant in a rape case. "Now days are dragon-ridden" indeed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

(Some jerk stole the ArbCom archives, and then published confidential email, which may result in serious harm to several persons.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC))

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Well, thank you. I do try to be the voice of the better side of Wikipedia over there. Silverseren^C 02:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Publishing the names of rape victims

This apparently moot discussion was extremely distasteful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rape Complaintant and WP:BLP

Where does it state that naming a rape complainant is against WP:BLP? There are MANY articles which name rape complainants on Wikipedia. See for example articles on:

Tawana Brawley Trisha Meili Crystal Mangum

You seem to be selectively applying a rule (which I can't find) to Julian Assenge's accusers (whose names are already all over the news and the internet.

Please also refer to WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not censored! Poyani (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Censor is trumped by 'WP:BLP, as you should know. (Earlier. Now updated with policy links and quotations 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

*WP:Biographies of living persons

• Reliable sources

• Avoid gossip and feedback loops
• Privacy of names
• Removing poorly sourced contentious material

• Presumption in favor of privacy

• Avoid victimization

*Restoring deleted content: "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first"

Updated with policy links and quotations. 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I edit WP sufficiently that I have no need to apologize for failing to correct all its errors or violations of WP:BLP.

I live in Sweden and I was unaware of the names of the complainants until recently, because civilized press do not publish the names of rape complainants. What is your source, apart from the hateful and marginal CounterPunch?

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Source? Typing this person's name on google brings up half-million results. What source would you like? This person's name is in the New York Times. As I said before there is nothing on BLP about rape claimants being censored. Please refrain from exporting your morality into wikipedia and demanding that other editors adhere to your moral standards. Also note I did not ask for any apology. I asked for an explanation. Poyani (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your link is broken.Please read WP:BLP, particularly the section giving victims/complainants the benefit of privacy to avoid prolonging victimization. What purpose does putting the complainant's name on that talk page serve? Answer: NONE!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources for you

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/08/1962779/accuser-in-wikileaks-saga-has.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025270-503543.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/assange-fails-to-manage-his-affairs-111773324.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL16Ak02.html

Poyani (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Miami Herald states that her "links to Cuba were posted on several websites Tuesday after Assange surrendered in London", which is consistent with a violation of WP:BLP, per Gossip.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

CBS News cites nobody for its identification of the woman. It cites cites the Australian website for news about the woman's recent activities: Indeed, it notes the weakness of even this sourcing: "Crikey also claimed, according to unidentified sources in Sweden,"... This doesn't establish a WP:BLP public identification of the complainant, and it is a very shaky description of the woman's other activities, if they were subject to a WP article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Times of India states that "Based on information available on various websites quoting police and court files, and reports in the Swedish media, here's an account of what happened.", again violating BLP:Gossip.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Winnipeg paper publishes an article that cites no sources, apart from stating she was mentioning an interview (my guess Aftonbladet's as summarized in a couple sentences in the NYT). This source, like the last, should not have been mentioned if you were serious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Asia Times is even worse—just a columnist writing sleazy nastiness about Hell having no fury like a woman scorned: "the twin Scandinavian version of Congreve's "a woman scorned"." It's hard for me to continue AGFing when you present such shit as evidence, particularly for your violating BLP about a rape complainant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why it is not mentioned in any articles about her. What are you talking about anyways? Please remember that the burden of proof is on you to show that WP:BLP prohibits the publishing of a rape complainant's name on a talk-page - and requires such person's name to be censored. There is no mention of rape complainants in WP:BLP.

You are wrong. WP:BLP puts the burden of proof on you for restoring deleted material.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that the NYT link is not broken for me. Please check again. Poyani (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The NYT's identification of the complainant is based on the Swedish socialist tabloid Aftonbladet, which need not be reliable.

'Aftonbladets interview does not mention the name of complainant A, in fact.

Regardless of Aftonbladet, this falls under the BLP violation against prolonging the victimization of the complainant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The NYT states no such thing. It states "But Ms. Finne, the prosecutor, has said the evidence appears to exclude outside manipulation, and one of the two women involved, **** *****, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that ..." Hence the NYT independently identifies the person I identified using * and then quotes them in the newspaper. The NYT does not use the Swedish newspaper to establish identity. It identifies ***** using its own authority. The NYT is a reliable source. Poyani (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While we are on the subject. Please note that CounterPunch is a reliable source. It fulfills all the requirements listed for reliable sources. Therefore this is a pointless exercise anyways. Poyani (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source - from Australia's The Age newspaper:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/did-he-or-didnt-he-the-murky-politics-of-sex-and-consent-20101211-18tie.html?skin=text-only Poyani (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

One last thing. The "nastiness" or "sleaziness" of a source is not my problem. You are going around removing references to Ms A (as you call her) who is mentioned by name in a few talkpages but have no problem with the fact that Trisha Meili has an article. Whatever personal vendetta you have in this issue and with regards to this case please do not export them to wikipedia. This is getting absurd. Poyani (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have read WP:BLP and you continue to re-insert contentious BLP material about a ~rape complainant on a WP:Talk page, then I shall file a report at the BLP noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not libelous. This is ridiculous. Refer me to whatever you like. You are just making up rules as you go along. The you state that the Miami Herald's description of her Cuban activities are gossip. But what you censored were not about her cuban activities. It was her name which you removed. The Miami Herald states "He is wanted for questioning after ***** and another woman accused him of having sex with them without a condom and without their consent."

You are charging me with violating BLP on a talkpage meanwhile you, without a sense of irony, refer to Gwynne Dyer of the Winnepeg Free Press as "lazy". You refer to Pepe Escobar, a well-respected journalist as "sleazy", describing his work as "nastiness" and "shit".

You demand a source from the source, and possibly another source from the source of the source (as was the case from the Australian, which was the source for CBS for only part of the story). You dismiss sources because they are "socialist tabloid" or (in your opinion) "hateful and marginal" or "left wing". Please cease and desist from this nonsense! Poyani (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself "Which is us is more familiar with WP:BLP policies?" before you continue to waste my time. You seem still not to have read WP:BLP, which strongly recommends evaluation of sourcing before one even begins to consider merely adding material.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you for familiarizing me with WP:BLP. Now, since Pepe Escobar is a living person, would you mind presenting your reliable sources justifying your description of him as "sleazy"? What is your source for describing his work as "shit"? Poyani (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I redacted my comment to apply precisely to the shitty, sleazy, or lazily sourced articles. Thanks for the help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt you are interpreting this correctly. I don't want to revert someone else work in that page. But I am going to mention this person's name on Julian Assenge's talk page. Feel free to file a report on BLP noticeboards. I want to test this. Poyani (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poyani (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLPN and Talk:Julian Assange for apparent consensus against outing rape victims.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Reversion of Julian Assange TalkPage

My post on the Julian Assenge TalkPage which you reverted did not actually refer to the accuser by name. I was just asking a question. Poyani (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I took you at your word, which announced another attempt to violate WP:BLP by breaking WP to prove a point. You did in fact name the victim repeatedly in your first edit. At long last some sense of decency prompted you to remove the name in your second edit, which I had wrongly guessed to be merely copy-editing. I have not reversed your addition of your redacted text (without the name).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLPN and Talk:Julian Assange for apparent consensus against outing rape victims.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me your dirty WikiLove

The Signpost, 27 June 2011:

A corned beef sandwich from Katz's Delicatessen, near Houston Street: "I'll have what she's having".

Give me your WikiLove: I don't want your sweet devotion, I don't want no cheap emotion: However, Zingerman's does deliver (even by air-mail)! ;-)

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For removing an erroneous asterisk and expressing friendship, I award you this WikiLoving kitten. Please be gentle with it, Mr. Wolf.

Drmies (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:-)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

And here's some wiki love that doesnt rely on the pet illusion. (for making me smile with the Ibsen ref) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Mercy buckets!

A fan of Lihaas and a fan of Simone Weil!

Maybe you can help me locate two Simone Weil quotes.

1. Justice, that refugee from victorious sides.
2. (something about stupidity of people in groups...) Beginning a sentence with "we" signals the end of thinking.

Cheers!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

De nada! 1) I think she said that in her 1937 letter to Georges Bernanos about the spanish civil war. Its been described as one of the political monuments of the 20th century - the former marxist fellow traveller reaching out to a hard core royalist. There's some interesting parallels with movements going on right now like Lord Gassman's Blue Labour. The letter certainly had a great effect on Bernanos, he started switching sides left right and centre. Normally the one thing I cant abide is a traitor, but one has to make an exception when its done at the behest of someone like Simone. You might have read the quote in Gustav Thibon's introduction to Gravity and Grace where he introduces it something like this:

This idea of counterbalancing is essential in her conception of political and social activity: "If we know in what direction the scales of society are tilted we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter scale. Although the weight may be something evil, if we handle it with the motive we shall perhaps not be tainted by it. but we must have a conception of equal balance and be always ready to change sides like Justice, that eternal fugitive from the campe of the the conquerors"

2) She wrote on that theme many times, you may be thinking of something from her essay "The Great Beast" (which is included in G&G i think) will have to check my books and get back to you next week. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Not sure of the original source for this now, its not in my copy of the Bernanos letter, but as I said Gustav does quote it in his introduction to G&G.

2) Here's the quote you was thinking of, its from The Need for Roots in the 'Freedom of opinion' subsection.

"The intelligence is defeated as soon as the expression of ones thoughts is preceded, explicitly or implicitly, by the little word 'we'. And when the light of intelligence grows dim, it is not very long before the love of the good becomes lost. "

She also wrote insightfully on the difference between, group , personal and impersonal thought in her very classic essay Human Personality. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a beautiful quotation, which regrettably is too long to have tattooed on me (and shall be unless I become worthy of participation on The Biggest Loser!).

"If we know in what direction the scales of society are tilted we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter scale. Although the weight may be something evil, if we handle it with the motive we shall perhaps not be tainted by it. but we must have a conception of equal balance and be always ready to change sides like Justice, that eternal fugitive from the campe of the the conquerors"

"The intelligence is defeated as soon as the expression of ones thoughts is preceded, explicitly or implicitly, by the little word 'we'. And when the light of intelligence grows dim, it is not very long before the love of the good becomes lost."

Thank you so much! You made my day!

She wrote the essay "The Illiad, Or the Poem of Force" which is extraordinary despite being tainted by its closing self-hating anti-semitism); it was translated by Mary McCarthy for Dwight Macdonald's Politics, and which is translated in Alasdair MacIntyre's (and Methodist Stanley Hauerwaus's) anthology, Revisions, which you may enjoy. Her life was so sad! I feel much closer to her than to her selfish brother, André Weil, who called WWII "not my war". A. Weil was on of the last century's best algebraic number theorists; I have long wanted to read an essay of his on The Illiad, which was published (in French) in a Springer Verlag festschrift for one of its mathematical editors; maybe you would enjoy it also? Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA

Dudeman... RfA oppose

Did you deliberately indent your oppose so it wouldn't be counted? LadyofShalott 23:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I was trying to fix my indent. The weird quotation of MF by Ryan Vesey seemed to have messed things up before I made my mistakes. I'll go and fix anything. Sorry for the inconvenience,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I saw you fixed it, and came to say "nevermind", but you had already responded. :) LadyofShalott 00:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

For once, my fast typing worked to my advantage! However, I shall add the trick of mis-indentation to my "black ops" repetoire, in case a future important vote seems to be going the wrong way! ;) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RFA formatting error

You could use the blockquote if you had placed it after the text instead of on a new line. Otherwise, your new edit works. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, do you know why the formatting for your talk page is incorrect at the bottom? The sections seem to be indented. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggested fix! I gave up on the block-quote, after several attempts failed to fix the problem of denying !votes to the following editors: I trust that the simply quoted test is sufficiently legible. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My misadventures with a GAR (quoted directly above) were responsible for the mis-formatting. Thanks for noting the error.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

• In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

• Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

• Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

• Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for your comments on my RfA. I have responded to your post on my RfA talk page. --E♴(talk) 02:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the courteous notice and good response. I recognize that it is more difficult to write WP articles on scientific topics, because the need for precision makes most of us stay rather close to the source cited. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User:Dylan620. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. If you genuinely believe the material is identifying information about a minor, then you should discuss that concern with WP:OVERSIGHT, not edit war over another user's userpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)