Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:46, 4 August 2011

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 11 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Auld Lang Syne

Talk:Stonewall riots

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)

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)

SDUSA convention links

Hi. I've uploaded the NYT stuff to my server:

• Template:Cite article
• Template:Cite article
• Template:Cite article
• Template:Cite article.

Hopefully those links work, let me know if you have a problem. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another:

• Template:Cite article

I've reformated them and shall add them to the article.

I must say, that I am very concerned about the possibility of copyright infringement: There is a ban on "further reproduction" at the top of each article. Is there something I am missing?

I assume that I shall have to add urls to the NYT, where users can decide to pay or not.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:48, 6 July 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)

NYT: Socialist Party of America, Socialist Party USA, and American Left

Hi Carrite!

I tried to follow-through on your suggestion to use the NYT to write an account of the alphabet soup of SDUSA, DSOC, SPUSA, and SPA. Please forgive me my errors and try to correct some! I used the paragraphs for Socialist Party of America,Socialist Party USA, and American Left, and SDUSA, and (ending with rejection) for American Left.

I raised a concern about copyright with the NYT. I don't think that we may show PDF files to a server: May we?

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Have you seen "Brother Outsider"? It's not available in Sweden, even for ready cash.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey K.Wolf--

The first section looks pretty good, I made a couple little phrasing and capitalization tweaks but no substantive changes. I haven't seen "Brother Outsider," I wasn't even aware of it, actually. I'm not much of a film guy though. As for the NY Times pdfs, since that's paywalled material there's no really good way to link that stuff up at WP within the rules, so footnoting just to issue date and, if possible, page is the way to go. I think you've done that, also with links to the paywall. If there was one change I'd suggest, it would be to eliminate the "references" section and to integrate that information into the inline footnotes themselves. It feels like the footnotes have footnotes currently. That's just a matter of style though. Nice work on the piece and good luck with your efforts at WP. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 14 July 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

• ... 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

On 13 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Kahn, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... thatTom Kahn organized American unions' $300,000 aid to the Polish labor union Solidarity in 1980–1981, despite Secretary of StateMuskie's warnings that this aid might provoke a new Soviet invasion? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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)

Expansion

Nicely balanced. I'm glad you didn't flinch from the matter of sexuality, which needed to be there. I note you've got the Solidarity graphic up twice — once at the top and again below. I'm still no fan of the footnotes having footnotes ("Notes" + "References"), but different strokes for different folks, as they say. Nice biography. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim.

Actually, I flinched for months. However, I didn't like that I had stuck all of his personal life in the "Personal relationships" section at the end (his youth, his relationship with Rustin, and then his living with AIDS and his partner).

Well, let me know if I wrote too much of the conflict with Michael Harrington, and Kahn's personal attacks. (Kahn made a several nasty remarks in an interview with the Wall Street Journal around 1973.) Around that time, Harrington took a break from his saintly "Father Socialism" personality to plant a slander that Kahn was a self-hating gay-basher (a slander that was uncritically repeated in Maurice Isserman's biography and Jack Newfield's autobiography), which has been critiqued by Horowitz. I can agree with Irving Howe that "things got to be pretty bad". There was later some more conflict about the Socialist Internationale, also, which Harrington described in The Long Distance Runner. Let us hope that Kahn agreed with SDUSA's buying an ad honoring Harrington, which was a kind & honorable act, of which even the democratic left should perform more often.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:02, 2 August 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—

(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:

(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);

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 WarriorSenator 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

AND DEAD!!!!!Big text ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

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).) A few minutes of work found that Busky is indeed a member and activist in the Socialist Party USA. "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Sergeant Carter!"

And reading McReynold's notes about Leninist and Trotskyist wackos kicking out social democrats (like apparently the whole Pennsylvania chapter) and endorsing Leninists is one of the more disturbing experiences I've had---even more than the now dropped proposal to name the complainants in a sex crimes investigations (where FB sites advocating violence against the women had previously pushed me into the realm of disassociation and revulsion).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

GAR

Hey, I hear you. You should list the article at WP:GAR and cite why you think the GA was inappropriate. Follow the instruction. You add a subst:GAR on the article talk page and then open a review.It will automanticaly appear later on the GAR review page with the others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added the subst:GAR for you. All you have to do now is simply state why you think it is not GA suitable here Hokay mate?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That was very helpful. I used my old GAR nomination, which I wrote quickly some weeks ago, before starting the clean-up operation. Thank you very much for your help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries! Have a good rest!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits regarding Socialist Party of America

Talkback

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

Self, this looks like a nifty tool: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ This would have saved me a lot of time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

1) An accusation of disruptive editing is a pretty strong one, and there are a hell of a lot more civil ways of expressing disagreement than threatening a block; 2) You're doing this for edits from 5 years ago! You need to assume good faith and remain civil, or I will have to take this dispute resolution, not so much over the content of your edits as for your behavior. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what Democratic centralism means?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I used the standard TW:template for a POV-warning. As noted, you introduced a terrible slander and severe copyright violations (of an unreliable source, which makes it worse).

My recognition that your other edits at the time were constructive and NPOV displayed my recognition of your general good faith and my charity.

And you have yet to apologize for the "democratic centralist" slander, which you need to do if you want to be a good person, and you need to ask for help with removing the copyright violations from the history.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Templating of editor's talk page

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC) This is what I had left on User:Peter G Werner's page.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Socialist Party of America, you may be blocked from editing. This edit introduced the slander "democratic centralism" in the article, also suggesting copy-right infringement of the SPUSA's history.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know what "democratic centralism" implies. If so, then I can forgive you, but there is still a problem of close paraphrasing. If you have done similar paraphrasing in other articles, then it needs to be corrected, I understand.

• This edit was NPOV and well done.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility complaint

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What an unfounded complaint. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I appreciate a vote of support especially after we have had direct differences discussed, which ended amiably and with mutual respect, I'm glad to note. It may be that the culture of biology has different standards for paraphrasing and citing things than in history, so that a clash of cultures may be occuring:

You should consider his point of view. I'm coming down on him tough for 4 edits he made years ago. I was rather blunt and tough on his talk page. I assume he is rather ignorant of the history of these organizations and of the broader left history, and that he accepted the SPUSA history somewhat naively, and repeated the slander of "democratic centralism" without understanding that this is a diabolical slander (particularly given the blood, which could fill rivers, between communism and socialism; the non-rhetorical observation of rivers of blood was also made by Irving Howe, perhaps in his autobiography A Margin of Hope). He may well have cited Drucker in the spirit of "this is a good book, which covers these events, which a lay reader would benefit from reading"—such loose citing is suboptimal but harmless when there is a carefully written account using 2 or more reliable high quality sources. Here Drucker was the only independent/reliable source cited for these events, which are contentious and covered by WP:BLP, since many are still alive.

I think my tone was tougher in the later exchanges on his talk page than on the article page. Make sure that you know what I've written before you vouch for me, okay! :)

It's always good to be tough on ourselves and gentle on the opponent when push comes to shove.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

American Left

Please consider looking at American Left. There are related discussions at the noticeboard on NPOV.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, K-Wolf--

There's been a bit of discord perking about the changes, particularly with respect to a purported overrepresentation of the 1960s and 1970s at the expense of older and newer periods -- at least that's what I've heard. in actually looking at things, I'm not terribly distressed, but I can see the point. It's more like the early period is underdeveloped rather than the latter period overdeveloped.

I do have something of a problem with the dichotomy between "Social Democratic" and "Marxist-Leninist" parties. In my view this is a bit of a Cold War-era relic; it's hard to construct any reasonable definition of "Marxism-Leninism" that includes today's CPUSA, for example. They aren't for armed struggle, they aren't for the establishment of a Soviet system, they've formally renounced the concept of the vanguard party. They don't run their own candidates and the organization is largely composed of a new generation of younger people that didn't have much of anything to do with the Gus Hall-era party. They're basically, and you will roll your eyes but it's true, a Social Democratic Party in 2011. Instead of an undifferentiated list of parties which would allow that they were one thing and evolved into another, they are lumped into an objectively wrong category based on multiple decades of past history.

Conversely, the Socialist Labor Party began as a Social Democratic Party and evolved into something different — and whatever you want to call it, I don't think the words "Marxist-Leninist" do it justice. Quasi-syndicalist? Not sure. Life is not as simple as the Social Democratic / Communist dichotomy that is represented on the page. They aren't even a functioning organization in 2011, as nearly as I can tell, although party head Robert Bills is still contributing DDL writings to Marxists Internet Archive in the name of the party, so neither can dirt unconditionally be shoveled on the grave.

A further critique would be that the ISO is missing altogether — this a quasi-Trotskyist, quasi-Social Democratic organization. The Sparts think that the ISO are SDs; many would call them Trots. I'm not sure labels are all that valuable myself. The lack of specificity about anarchist grouplets is also less than desirable.

I'm just not sure that my venturing into this is worth the time and effort. I can appreciate what you're doing and I think it's fine. I can appreciate the critique of the end result, and I think that has merit. I can see a number of flaws, mostly fixable by what I think would be a contentious position — that the SD/ML dichotomy should be ditched and that organizations should be listed alphabetically. But that's one person's opinion.

I will paste this correspondence to the talk. Maybe it will provide a tiny bit of food for thought. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carrite!

I agree that the "Marxist-Leninist category" is ill-named for some groups. It would be better to call them small-c communists that are distinct from social-democratic/democratic-socialist organizations. Perhaps "Marxist organizations advocating communism"?

• CPUSA: It is a pity that the CPUSA had squandered its USSR-subsidies so that the People's Daily World had become the People's Weekly World when the old guard implemented its coup against Gorbachev, so that the CPUSA did not come out publicly in favor of Stalinism once again (as in the Soviet-imposed regimes in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland). The last I saw, the CPUSA and its front organizations had become the press agents of North Korea. Even if they have renounced vanguardism, they are "Marxist" advocates of totalitarianism. (Commenting on his son-in-law Paul Lafarge, Karl Marx exclaimed, "Je ne suis pas une Marxiste")
• ISO (International Socialist Organization): I'm not familiar with that organization, apart from that formidable Berkeley librarian, Hal Draper.
• Solidarity which may be larger than ISO is described as coming from the Trotskyist organization International Socialists.
• DeLeon's Socialist Labor Party ---file under curiosa, like Huber the Tuber --- I once saw a member of the SLP's youth section members pasing out a newspaper outside of a Woolworth's: The youth section member seemed to be about 87 years old!
• SPUSA. David McReynolds has written in his blog that this group has lately been dominated by enthusiasts of Leninism and Trotsky, who want to stop U.S. socialist history at the age of Debs, who have expelled several state chapters on the grounds that their members are social democrats, etc. It's not clear that this group, as it currently opperates, is far from the post-Trotskyist organizations, like Solidarity. At least the SPUSA's Ohio Governor's candidate is a member of Solidarity. (The American Left article, with its short history after Debs, would be consistent with McReynold's description, whether by chance or no.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiya K-Wolf--

Here's the URL for ISO: http://www.internationalsocialist.org/branches.html

My understanding is that the Trotskyists are composed primarily of the Spartacists, who are more hardline traditionalists, and the ISO, who are more electorally-oriented. The latter is tight with Haymarket Books, whose publications you may have seen. The SWP is still extant but is more or less a Pathfinder Press bookstore with a generally Castroite orientation. Not sure what to make of Solidarity and the rest, my spin is that its mostly those two groups these days. Hope this helps. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carrite!

Thanks for the notes on the Joy of Sects. I had thought that ISO was predominantly British, but now I know that ISO, Limited is a transnational operation.

The Sparts seem to have won the prize for nuttiest sect, with their slogan "The defense of the Soviet Union begins in El Salvador".

About the SWP, there was a SWP woman at a bar who, after making some inappropriate comments/advances to a friend of mine, coyly said, "I guess that I am breaking 'Party discipline'."! I think that somebody (Dwight Macdonald?) once compared the SWP to the Jehovah's Witnesses, because of their dogmatism and their (significantly) working-class composition.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

SDS

It seems to have been accepted that the Progressive Labor Party was a Marxist-Leninist sect that helped to destroy SDS. There were other destroyers.

Bob Dylan's "It don't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", furnished the name of the Weatherman (national office) faction of SDS, whose behavior inspired the slogan, "It don't take a rectal thermometer to know who the ass-holes are".

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Flag(s): Socialist Party of America

Hi K-Wolf--

You lost me on the Werner flag, which article is that on?

While on the same subject, a heads-up that I pulled a couple flags from Max Shachtman, which I dropped by in the process of my ongoing Communist League of America writing project. Do you have remaining concerns here? I was rather shocked to see we don't have a photo of Mighty Max, any ideas where to find this? I raised my eyebrows a little that you pulled him from the "Neoconservatism" category, since he is often regarded as the godfather of neoconservatism but I didn't switch back on that, since I know where you're coming from that the Right SDs have been excessively tarred. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Socialist Party of America#From_the_Socialist_Party_to_Social_Democrats.2C_USA

More to come.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just reading his talk page. I don't think he's a very happy camper with the changes you've made. I haven't looked at any diffs, I've got no opinion other than it looks to me like you were coming after him pretty aggressively and he took umbrage and doesn't seem to have much intention of pulling down the flag on his own. I'd give it a little time. Carrite (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The slander that Michael Harrington, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, etc., were "democratic centralists" was on Misplaced Pages for 5 years. I think that my response was quite restrained, honestly. He is welcome to remove the critique of his scholarship from his talk page; his freedom to remove whatever he wants is why I wrote there. (On the other hand, I think that the short criticisms of his needs to remain on the talk page, unless an administrator removes 5 years of history from the article.)

His obligation to suggest actions to improve the article was incurred by his placing the NPOV tag. He cannot abrogate his obligation because of high disdain from sense of injured merit.

If he doesn't suggest anything in a reasonable time, the tag should be removed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable time elapsed, already, imho, so the flag is gone, per the WP policy against "drive by tagging" stated on the NPOV-template's instructions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Glotzer

Take it away on him, I pretty much got the Trotskyist period stuff lined up this morning. Not sure if you can come up with a photo or not, but maybe you can fill in a little bit about his 1970s and 1980s activities. I was rather chagrined to learn this morning that there are 67 boxes of his papers down at the Hoover Archives, where I was earlier this month doing research. Oh, well, that will give me a reason to head south again in a couple years...

By the way, I'd like to do a piece on the Hoover Institution Archives -- not sure if you've got any sourcing ideas on that. They let me take a picture inside, which is ordinarily against the rules for security reasons (Chinese dissidents read there). I haven't really done any legwork on that topic, sources-wise, but I do know that will be kind of difficult. The Archives are a separate entity from the right-wing Hoover Institution think tank and I'd really like a blue link for that. Anyway, not sure how connected you are with links there, but just thought that I'd bounce it off you. — tim Carrite (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carrite!

Think about Albert Glotzer's profession---stenographer!---and you will understand why he has so many important papers, e.g. for the Dewey Commission of Inquiry.

About the Hoover Institute, I have no experience: Do you think me to be a social democrat so right wing? ;)

However, we should tip our hats to the HI, for supporting Max Shachtman & Sidney Hook and others on the democratic left/center/right, to make the world of ideas more interesting. Ditto with Robert Conquest's Harvest Of Sorrow, which remembered 10-30 million lives destroyed by Stalin. Maybe the HI has nice luncheons, which you can crash ...? ;)

It seems problematic to label Shachtman and Kahn as right-wing .... What was so left-wing about destroying the Democratic Party so that, to regain the presidency and have OSHA laws enforced we had to wait for Clinton? (Did you read Dissent 2010 about the crack-down on dissent in Vietnam?)

Enjoy your stay in Palo Alto!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi K-Wolf--

Harvest of Sorrow is bad history, but we won't get into that... But do be sure not to personalize everything, STALIN didn't do it all, it was a system bigger than him (for which he is ultimately responsible, to be sure — but still). And remember in the 1932/33 famine — there were as many as a million Kazakhs that died, as well as ethnic Russians. So don't reduce this to anti-Ukrainian genocide. This was something else. Ugly and brutal — but something else.

Hoover Archive has a bad reputation, see? It shouldn't. Working there is no different than a visit to the archives at the Universities of Michigan or Wisconsin... There needs to be a page that makes clear the difference between the Archive and Library, on the one hand, and the (right wing) Think Tank, on the other. Anyway, I'll get to it sometime this year...

The Labadie collection is a treasure.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that you've captured the mentality of the historic SDUSA so well yet you live in Scandinavia. Are you an expatriate American? An American Studies student? I was in that group for a very short time and you've nailed their thinking. I think you underestimate their underlying conservative trend there a little bit, but that's okay. You really understand why they hated the McGovern Democrats. I'm just a little bit too young to have been part of that movement, but those were "my people" philosophically, so there is this little hurdle I have to clear to be fully objective about SDUSA. But you understand...

I quit the organization very shortly after I joined, over their Africa policy. They were cheerleaders for Savimbi in Angola, hated Mugabe and the ANC's guts. They weren't so wrong about Mugabe, I suppose, but were totally incorrect on the ANC. Still, it looked to me like they had become a political arm of the CIA and I was out the door and on to DSOC in a matter of months.

These days, after a long, circuitous route, I've become a scholar of 1920s American radicalism. I'm a Left SD politically, but the Communists are WAAAAAY more interesting. I've learned not to hate them, but to understand them, which is a good goal for all of us now that the war is over.

I hope you don't mind my ramblings here. I like you, you're good stuff... Carrite (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carrite!

Thanks for your pats on the back, which are very much appreciated, given recent PA attacks on me and my alleged politics. As you know, the political (even historical) area of Misplaced Pages is prone to irritation than the mathematical area, so editing political/ideological articles can often be a headache. (See the above quote about WikiProject Philosophy, which is funny and more pithy than my remarks about WikiProject Mathematics c. March.)

I prefer not to say to much to identify myself on-Wiki, although you guessed correctly: I am American living in Sweden and have been for many years. Any organizational ties I once had were left long ago, more than 15 years, and any COI expired long ago (and did not involve SDUSA). I heard about SDUSA from people mispronouncing their name "seduce-ah".

The charge that SDUSA "supported the Vietnam War" has often been made but turned out not to be true, when I checked. I learned just this Spring that the SP did not split but rather that the majority voted to turn the SP into SDUSA. Learning this fact made me extremely skeptical of most "histories" of the 1960s and 1970s American left, and made me want to learn more.

I had heard that SDUSA had helped to support Solidarity, and was surprised to find sources documenting this. I thought that this was a story deserving to be told.

I spun off the article about Kahn and then have been enlarging it because I think that he was probably the best U.S. political strategist of the latter 20th century---much broader and more profound than Kevin Philips. Kahn has a mind like a good mathematician---he wants to understand things, and so deals with counter-examples and inconvenient facts, and he writes very clearly. I understand, as did Howe, that Kahn's writings after 1972 have many bitter asides about Harrington's personality and leadership, and now I can say that I agree with many of them. On the other hand, Harrington was a nice guy and helped inspire the War on Poverty, so I wish that Kahn had not twisted the knife so often. Well, we all have sides of our personalities that trouble our friends and ourselves.

America would have been better off with a leader combining Harrington's charm, kindness and good humor with Kahn's analytic & strategic genius.

I don't have the energy to enlarge on the criticism of the new politics of McGovern or the new left's elitism, but this would be an important part of any serious article on SDUSA: Maybe SDUSA and the AFL-CIO's criticisms are reported in reliable sources focused on the Coalition for a Democratic Majority or the Democratic Leadership Council or about neo-conservatism?

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

RfAs

Re: Civility

Sorry, I assumed you were watching the page. Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem

Copied from Zagalejo's page: Sometimes I monitor that page, but sometimes I don't!

I did read your comments on the that page with attention, and I'll certainly remember your comment and others' comments in the future.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not so nice

Reading this had irritated (usually sweet-hearted) me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of K.W.

Damn, you got a raw deal. Your Denial of Death article was never an essay; it was obviously meant as a summary of the work. Does Kiefer.Wolfowitz realize how condescending his question #6 was? Zagalejo^^^ 04:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I had left a challenge question for the candidate, asking him to fix an article which he'd started....

He started the article, and left it in the state where it "read like an essay", a good essay as I granted. However, WP requires secondary sources, and this was a chance for Tim to fix a short article. (Of course, I did not state that the article was a WP User Essay.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that he realizes his own condescension given this comment. Also refer to this conversation in which he seems to reveal that his whole problem with the article was the author's point of view on Schizophrenia! I guess I had the feeling of a "drive-by opposition". I will not reopen the RfA, as many wise folks have suggested, I will give it some time. There is no rush on my part to become an admin, but there seemed to be a rush to close any discussion of it. ;) --TimL (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Condescension is an inappropriate but understandable response when an new, usually good-hearted, and energetic editor displays petulance. In this case, Tim quoted a policy which he had not read, to justify his reverting me on my own talk page. 08:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to be treated as an equal, when you have not had the manners to alert me of this discussion or to bother to read the history (of Tim's inappropriate edit and misguided quotation of policy) and correct him?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC from you

Please review the comment I posted here and consider helping to gain a consensus. I think you could help make a difference. My76Strat (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi My76Strat!

Thanks for your kind words and courteous note here.

As I wrote there, I (like most) have only a favorable impression of the candidate, and I believe that his having had written a C-class encyclopedic article or two (in the next few months) should result in his receiving acclamation at his next RfA.

Like others, I am concerned that RfA is increasingly dominated by "editors" inexperienced with writing encyclopedic articles (many of whom seem obsessed with "racking up" Twinkle edits and supporting their friends): Frivolous or pop-culture articles have a place, but they should be kept in their place, also.

Until RfA is dominated by encyclopedia writers/editors (not "editors") with intellectual maturity (e.g. sufficient to recognize that plagiarism is a serious problem on WP), I shall have difficulty supporting candidates with as little content contribution as the most recent candidate, who otherwise seems like an excellent RfA candidate. I am tired of reading 50 vapid support statements that show no scrutiny of the RfA candidate's contributions, and at best a quick checking-off of whether the candidate has discussed sufficiently many (worthless) articles at CSD, etc., and so I have decided to be more conservative about supporting or being neutral towards non-excellent candidates.

The sins of the children are visited upon the fathers unto the third generation....

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice "thank you"! You will do fine. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Misplaced Pages at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Quoted with approval (emboldening added):

Q: WikiProject Philosophy has 44 FA-class articles, 2 FLs, and 70 GA-class articles. How did your Project achieve this and how can other Projects work toward this?

A The big advantage is that most of these articles do not attract the nuts. Or maybe I should say, the nuts here are at least highly educated nuts.

The biggest problems on other big projects: "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity".

Rick Norwood

Time to bask in the sunshine

	Trachemys scripta elegans
	We wish our friendly outstanding editor the best! :-)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violations, Plagiarism, etc.

Disinfopedia

I've looked at a few of those articles, and they seem ok - and then I noticed they were created on 20 August 2004, so hopefully any major problems will have been fixed since. I'll look at the rest as I get the chance, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi BK!

Thanks for the quick reply.

My quick look at the 3 articles indicated that, in each case, the bulk of the present article had been input by the energetic IP that day. However, others' additions would make the quick-deletion nomination more of a headache. (I noted my BLP/RS/NPOV concerns, earlier.)

The spirit is willing to investigate more articles, but the flesh is indeed weak.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the present version of Thomas L. Rhodes. Another editor had cut & pasted copyrighted material from National Review Online. (That IP's two copyright violations had been cleaned up.) I suppose that the history must be cleaned up.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For future reference IP did about 15 more similar uploadings of articles from disinfopedia, on August 20, according to his edit summaries.

{{db-g12|url=sourceurl}}  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I tagged the problem ones as best as I could. Three additional copyright violations have been deleted, bring the total to 5, and two other articles are flagged as having copyright problems (with salvageable text otherwise).

As you had wished (above), the WP community did fix most of the articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Committee on the Present Danger

I don't think the situation at Committee on the Present Danger is clear.

While the bulk of the current text matches what appears at this sitec, note the CC 3.0 license.

Perhaps you did, and were arguing that it is plagiarized, rather than a copyvio.

However, much of the material in the WP article was there in 2005, so it may be that the linked site copied the WP site. Whether the original WP material is valid is not yet clear.

I'm going to add the template that hides the content, and send this off to the copyright experts, unless you think I'm missing something.--SPhilbrickT 00:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please use the link I supplied, which is to the 1989 page, which has (in this case) been updated. The 1989 page was plagiarized/copied. And it still furnishes the bulk of the article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It was the original: " Posted: January 06, 1989" and "Updated: 7/89".

Thanks for your quick response.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to the CopyVio noticeboard, where the conversation started. Sphilbrick is correct that the CC 3.0 license allows copying, but only if appropriate credit is given. In these cases, it seems that the credit has not been given, and so at minimum extensive re-writing (inserting quotation marks, footnotes, etc.) is needed to bring the articles into compliance.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Misplaced Pages authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Misplaced Pages; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Thanks!

For the improvements on Freedom House. It made the article WAY better. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi OpenFuture!

Thanks for the "'attaboy"!  :-)

There are even worse problems (e.g. apparent copyright issues) at the article on FH's Freedom in the World, which I trust shall be resolved soon, by a wise administrator.

I'm a statistician and admirer of North Carolina's fine Sociology Department. Looking at those FH/FitW articles, I immediately saw the name of Ken Bollen, the writer of the best book on LISREL/structural equation models. Ken certainly would not jeopardize his reputation by writing what our articles said he did.

I get headaches just contemplating the clean-ups needed to because of right-wingers pushing stories about menacing networks of Jews/neo-conservatives/Trotskyists and left-wingers pushing stories about menacing networks of Jews/neo-conservatives/CEOs/cold-warriors/anti-communists/Americans etc. And now I realize that most of these POV articles have been plagiarized from websites like "RightWeb" and "JewWatch".

Oh the times, Oh the morals ....

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I saw that you edited Nissan Pivo. "Pivo" means beer in Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. However, I'm sure the name comes from "pivot", not because they drunk czech lager. :-) See also Honda Fitta (which was quickly renamed). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, that would have sold well in Nordic countries!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Freedom in the World

Wow. Is this what I can expect on retirement - editors believing they can piss on my reputation from a great height because I won't be around to deal with complete nonsense like this? (a) most of the text you have issues with is in quote marks. It's not "closely paraphrased", it's the same as the source. Obviously. (b) you want to delete the article because you have issues with a section? no. (c) you demand page numbers for some things, despite clearly having access to the original text, so that a simple find in page would give you the answer. (d) evidently your problem is not copyright, but POV. Deal with it by editing and/or talkpage discussion or other forms of dispute resolution. PS Yes, it was clearly done in an over-quoted bullet-point fashion to save time; it should be rewritten, but that's a totally different issue. Rd232 08:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned only with your having introduced an unreliable source into the article by extensive paraphrase that violates WP policy on copyrights/paraphrasing. It is not just quotation, but extensive quotation from one page and not using other sources or other ideas that makes the problem severe. It is obviously a violation of copyright/copy and pasting/or related policies.

The source is unreliable. Just look at his mis-use of Bollen. There is no point in my adding page references to unreliable sources.

You edited your talk page 3 days ago, I noted when I left the message. If you have forgotten that you still are active, then such lapses would explain a lot.

08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(a) I'm trying to leave, and I'm officially retired; you couldn't be sure I'd respond. Don't pretend otherwise. (b) you seem to have to trouble with the concept of paraphrasing. (c) Academic sources are WP:RS, unless much effort has gone into proving otherwise. That hasn't happened here. (d) part of the reason there's so much quotation from that source is that it summarises a bunch of other relevant sources. It would be better to go to them directly, but that's a lot more work. No-one's stopping you! Now, withdraw this copyright bullshit, or I may be provoked to postpone my retirement briefly in order to investigate what other misuse you have made of Misplaced Pages policies. Rd232 09:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP policy suggests leaving notices about copyright violations on user's page, to allow assessment of whether there be a pattern.

I'm telling you that there are huge problems with that article. Look at the misuse of Bollen and act responsibly. I'm a statistician and know Bollen, and it was obvious that you and your source were misusing his work. Comparing Bollen with your source will reveal other worrisome things, which cannot be discussed on WP.

I am well aware of the policies you mention. Investigate as much as you want. Scrutiny is welcome.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

" it was obvious that you and your source were misusing his work." - I strongly object to the word "misusing". I was relying on a reputable academic source. If you have issues with that source, fine, deal with it in the usual way. Rd232 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't see the copyright violation. 2. rd232: Stop being hysterical. Nobody is "pissing on your reputation", that's absolutely ridiculous. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation issues are an excellent way of very rapidly losing the respect of the Misplaced Pages community (and rightly so). It is therefore not an accusation to be made, or taken, lightly. Rd232 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Look Rd232, I'm sorry for not editing the template to remove the warning about blocking if copyright violation occurred. I have known that you are an experienced and trusted editor. I have never believed that such extensive quoting, even with quotation marks, was symptomatic of your editing. I just believed that I should follow policy and leave such a warning, with its convenient links to the article and the sources, on your page. I should have specialized it for you.~Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not the issue of blocking, it's that there was no copyright issue here at all; you had a POV issue and saw some quotation (substantial quotation, yes, but not "extensive") and decided to make a copyright issue where there isn't one. I'm happy to concede a quality issue (that the article would be better if the section was rewritten without bullets and less quotation), but that doesn't require my attention. Rd232 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are a sysop and may well be a Time Lord for all I know. But in my simple-minded experience of temporality, I believe that you have the chronology backwards. ;) Check the history. :-)

I first did the tagging of the article because of copyright violation concerns. Later, I tagged the unreliable source and complained about the absence of page numbers.

I had wished that my having stated my concerns about NPOV/RS before an administrator ruled on the copyright violation would be a sign of my good faith, that would (0) spur you to add page numbers, which would aid an administrator responding to the copyrightviolation bat signal, (1) warn the administrator to be cautious about my possibly having a POV bias, and (2) prevent questions about my good faith being raised later if my understanding of copyright/paraphrasing/etc. be wrong (in which case, I would raise a fuss about the article you are using).

At the last few RfAs, User:SandyGeorgia's fire-and-brimstone sermons scared the hell out of everybody, and it may be that I have over reacted. If so, then I would be especially sorry for my errors, even more than I am sorry now for having interrupted your shuffleboard sessions! ;)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Winger, Richard. "Institutional Obstacles to a Multiparty System," in Multiparty Politics in America, Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997)
2. Ansolabehere, Stephen and Gerber, Alan. "The Effects of Filing Fees and Petition Requirements on U.S. House Elections," Legislative Studies Quarterly 21 no. 2 (1996)
3. Fitts, Michael A. "Back to the Future: Enduring Dilemmas Revealed in the Supreme Court's Treatment of Political Parties", in The U.S. Supreme Court and the Electoral Process (2nd ed.) David K. Ryden, ed. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002 ISBN 9780878408863 pp. 103-105 and passim
4. 2008, pp. 63.
5. Beichman, Arnold (July 28, 2002). "Communism to anti-communism in lives of two rival editors". The Washington Times. Goliath.ecnext.com. Retrieved February 7, 2010.
6. Heilbrunn, Jacob (February 1, 2008). "They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of The Neocons". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 7, 2010.
7. ^ Busky 2000, pp. 164.
8. Busky 2000, pp. 165.
9. "Socialist Party Now the Social Democrats, U.S.A." The New York Times. December 31, 1972. Retrieved February 8, 2010.(Pay-fee for article)