Talk:Tom Kahn

Expansion

I suggest the following areas for expansion: Please volunteer to help with a section (or with organizing references ...). IMHO, most readers are very well served by Horowitz's biography, and so there is no need for me to devote much efforts in the next months to expansion. Therefore, help is needed!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Civil rights movement

Anybody interested in the civil rights movement can probably find a lot of material on Kahn in books about Bayard Rustin.

March on Washington

It would be useful to discuss Kahn's memo (following discussions with Hill, Horowitz, Rustin) proposing the 1963 March on Washington, as well as earlier actions. It would be good to discuss A. Philip Randolph's speech (ghost written by Kahn), using accounts in newspapers, magazines, and biographies of Randolph.

From protest to politics

This is an important document in American political history, imho.

Freedom budget

Maybe this is discussed in the biographies of Randolph, Rustin, Martin Luther King, and Michael Harrington?

League for Industrial Democracy and Students for a Democratic Society

This would be very hard to write, because of Harrington, Horowitz, and Kahn were often described as the old anti-communists who were mean to Tom Hayden. I think Gitlin's book is balanced (and he has acknowledged that the concerns of Harrington and Kahn were proved right on many issues). Has SDS founder Steve Max (now of the Midwest Academy) written anything about Kahn?

I think that Isserman's biography of Harrington mentions Norman Thomas being disappointed with the SLID versus SDS, at least in the early-mid 1960s.

Split of the Socialist Party

This was a traumatic event for Kahn and others, and its importance has been exaggerated imho by the many poorly sourced partisan accounts. This event should have a very carefully referenced and small section, which probably should solicit reviews from editors of diverse political viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)~

Democratic Party

This is less exciting for me. Maybe somebody could collect some good links and references about Jackson, Humphrey, etc.?

George Meany

There is a mention of a George Meany speech that has gay-baiting, that Jack Newfield's autobiography attributes (with a nasty smear about Kahn's sexuality) to Kahn, following Michael Harrington's bar-room tip; Isserman's biography of Kahn repeats this charge, citing a published version of the speech. Examining this speech, Horowitz criticizes Isserman's scholarship (even Homer nods!); Horowitz concludes that Kahn wouldn't have written such a speech, and notes that at least 2-3 other speech writers were the probable ghost authors. Maybe a biography of Meany has more discussion? Isserman identifies himself as a DSA member who was called by the DSA office on the day of MH's death, so he doesn't strike me as more independent than Horowitz. Somebody should examine the document cited by Horowitz and Isserman alike, and be careful, because Horowitz and Isserman strike me as very scrupulous and honest!

AFL-CIO

This is the best section of the article. I try to let the quotes speak for themselves. Perhaps I have quoted too much, at risk of violating copyright?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I sympathize more with Kahn than with the New Leftists who accuse the AFL-CIO of being running dogs of American Imperialism, or the right/left conspiracy-theorists who blame Shachtmanites (implicitly or explictly "Jews"---like Kahn, Penn Kemble, and Michael Harrington, Bogdan Denitch, etc.!) for the adventures of the Bush administration. Maybe one can mention a reputable source discussing such junk.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Books

Conversations with Irving Howe

Irving Howe (for example Todd Gitlin) have interesting comments on Kahn, Rachelle Horowitz, Michael Harrington, etc. Gitlin acknowledges that Kahn was right about e.g. membership being needed for SDS (against everybody else, who removed a requirement in 1965), and that he interviewed Kahn around 1985 and Kahn gave an interesting analysis of why he reacted so strongly against the Port Huron Statement's criticisms of labor unions (i.e., that he was tempted by the same position, about to change from civil-rights to AFL-CIO/Democratic Party work). Howe makes a number of obviously true judgments about Kahn's personality and intelligence.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Politics and the Intellectual: Conversations with Irving Howe John Rodden Ethan Goffman format: Paperback publisher: Purdue University Press pub. date: 06/30/2010 page count: 376pp series: Shofar Supplements in Jewish Studies ISBN 13: 9781557535511

Hayden's Reunion

In his reunion memoir, Hayden p. 88 acknowledges viewing Kahn as a "wimp" because of his primitive state in 1964, and having a phobia against meeting at Bayard Rustin's apartment, which had a lot of clocks.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Magazines

This memoir has several sections giving personal accounts of Kahn:

• LeBlanc, Paul (2008). "Reluctant memoir, part 2 ('Old left / new left interplay' and 'Heart and soul')". Against the Current. 135. Solidarity: "A socialist, feminist, anti-racist organization". {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Perhaps it could be given as further reading or as an external link.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dissent:

Dissent published the following articles by Kahn, listed from latest to earliest:

• Where Is the Negro Movement Now? (November 1968)
• The Riots and the Radicals (September 1967)
• On Participatory Democracy Comments (March 1967)
• A Report on the LID (March 1966)
• Direct Action and Democratic Values (January 1966)
• The Ambiguous Legacy of Malcolm X (April 1965
• Problems of the Negro Movement (January 1964)
• The Power of the March-and After (September 1963)
• The Idea of Revolution (April 1961)

This list may be helpful to other editors. The articles are available for purchase at Dissent's Archives.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from talk page

I asked User:Carrite to consider doing a review of this article (for good-article status).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Specific comments:

1. Congrats on getting the pictures; that was a big defect before.

2. I really don't like "quote stacking." "One fact, one footnote" should be the slogan. If there are multiple angles to a fact, feel free to elaborate in the footnote itself, mentioning and citing multiple sources — but there should be only one footnote showing, in my opinion. Pick your best for each.

3. I REALLY hate splitting up Footnotes into Notes + References. Footnotes should be sufficiently elaborate, mentioning all publication data at first use of each source, and any additional sources should be in Further Reading. This, of course, a matter of style about which honest people may differ. I've seen other people use the system you use, I just don't like it.

This is easily a GA, but the system is inherently subjective and bureaucratic, so don't stress too much if somebody differs.

Carrite (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carrite and others:

Thanks for the feedback and kind words.

Regarding (2) "quote stacking": I have tried to cite an alternative source for Rachelle Horowitz, because she wrote her (extremely carefully written and well documented) article as a memorial to her friend, Kahn. I have tried to provide WP readers with an alternative source, every time I have cited Horowitz. I have found no place where Horowitz has made any errors, btw.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding (3), we may have an irreconcilable difference. I favor the scientific tradition of having publication details at the end of the article for all. However, that would obscure the most important sources. Thus, like many WP articles, this article has a mixed style, with (sometimes abbreviated) publication details the first time a source is given.

Thanks again for the feedback.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom Kahn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 04:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Seems mostly fine to this ESL, but in the first para, the colloquial dad should be changed to father. Please ensure this article has a professional tone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   Kahn was adopted, so his biological father was not his acting father, or dad. I agree that it sounds weird.

   DONE! (long ago 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Please add a 2nd level biography section, and reorganize the sections. This also entitles splitting up a section on works/accomplishments/recognition and such from the biography. Currently the article makes it difficult to see what he was famous (notable) for. I don't like the look of "Selected writings" section, at the very least, why are some works indented? Also, 3 elinks are dead, please run the tool in the box above and fix or remove them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

   "2nd level biography request: DONE! 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   "Dead links": DONE! I fixed the 3 dead links. You did that voodoo that you do so well on the references, changing the style, so that 3 hidden references were picked up. I removed those hidden subsections, thus fixing the problem with the 3 dead elinks. I shall fix the selected writings in a day or so. KW

   Look again, please. This section has been cleaned up: Republications (formerly indented) have disappeared.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   DONE!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   This is somewhat unclear to me. It sounds like you want me to have a biography section (including the earlier written sections tracing his life history).

   DONE!

   Then you want me to have a section assessing his importance and legacy, and his written works. Is that correct? (I did not see any MOS mandate for this, but the implementing your suggest changes cannot hurt and may well help.

   To me it self-evident that a man who proposed the March on Washington, wrote best strategical analysis for labor and civil-rights in the 1960s, and who raised 300 K USD for Solidarity (and continued to help with NED funding) was a great leader in U.S./world politics. I stuck to narrative of contributions, rather than assessments.

   But perhaps, I should have more assessments? (Many of them were written by friends after he died, so they tend towards non-encyclopedic praise.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Insufficient reference density in one place. For example, first para in "Early life" has no reference. This is however the only exception, as other than that, the article seems to confirm to the "all sentences referenced" standard. A more serious problem seems to be bad reference formatting. To start with, I see ibids and other items discouraged by our MoS. The style is also confusing, what is the style used? I see cite templates, followed by harvard templates, with weird cites like "Gitlin, p. 119" (which Gitlin?), another citation begins with a page ("Page 305."). Some citation have quotations, which is not very helpful, as it makes them look like notes (I suggest remove the quotes or add them to the text). In fact, some citations are notes ("The prospects of Solidarity and the...", "Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director". They need to be split into references and notes. And three references seem not to be used in the main text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   I removed the one ibid., and then replaced Isserman with a harvard reference. I'll fix the others in a few days. KW

   My apologies for the delay.

   I split multiply used or essential references from the notes. Once-used references appear in the notes, as do some references that establish minor points (and that may be less than the highest quality, most reliable sources).

   The citation of sources is now rather uniform.

   Thank you for your guidance and patience.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   You wrote "The style is also confusing, what is the style used? I see cite templates, followed by harvard templates, with weird cites like "Gitlin, p. 119" (which Gitlin?), another citation begins with a page ("Page 305."). Some citation have quotations, which is not very helpful, as it makes them look like notes (I suggest remove the quotes or add them to the text). In fact, some citations are notes ("The prospects of Solidarity and the...", "Todd Gitlin later acknowledged that LID Director". They need to be split into references and notes."

   The cite ___ is the default. For some cases, its parental template, citation, is used, because of its additional fields for others=,origyear=, etc. The harvard templates work with citation; there is no inconsistency. Would you agree your dislike of harvard/citation templates may be a matter of taste? (C.f. Tulip mania.)

   Where possible, I have separated notes and references. However, quotations with citations are used to established facts that were previously questioned by editor TheFourDeuces, about Marxist Leninists in SDS; per WP:Verifiability, citations must be given when things are questioned---hence the detail.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Seems fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   Seems fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Most likely. This will become clear, hopefully, once biography is split from works and significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Ditto. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:Kahn, Bukovksy, and Bikel.jpg seems to be missing OTRS verification. This could be a problem at some point, and I'd suggest this is fixed sooner rather than later. I AGF this, but others may not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No red flags. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold, waiting for a reply. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks! I made a few changes and shall fix the rest in a day or so.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Selected writings section still not fixed. References are still a mess. It does not appear that remaining issues where fixed after the initial response here about certain issues fixed and the promise to address the remaining ones in the "next few days". If the issues are not fixed soon, I'll have to fail this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Piotrus. I'll fix some more.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I did as much as I can do today. I think I fixed the most egregious problems.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks better. Few more suggestions: Domber ref should be split into three or more, to clearlyindicate which fact is referenced with which range. Frankly, I find the idea of a reference used three times and consisting of six ranges confusing. Why is Drucker defined in the footnotes, when most others aren't? If you want to use shortened references, it is common for all full citations to be moved to biographies (including articles). Notes need to be split from references. (ex. D'Emilio (2003, p. 278)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Specific suggestions:

• Domber. Domber is a careful resource which mentions Kahn on those pages. Domber is cited only for the general statement that Kahn did a lot to help Poland. The reader wanting more can just look at the pages. In this case, documenting a broad claim, the benefit to the reader outweighs your concerns, imho.
• Drucker. Drucker is used only once, and not for an extensive quotation. In such cases, the complete reference stays in the footnote.
• Notes/citations. I have split notes from references when it makes sense. The only cases where notes and references are blended is when I am citing quotations as evidence for potentially surprising or already questioned details. Such evidence would be a distraction in the article, but is there for those (aforementioned) who questioned whether SDS had problems with Marxist Leninists.

Finally, are Dombar and Thiel needed? Now they are only used vaguely. In the future, Dombar and Thiel should be used for an expansion of the support of Solidarity. Each looks like exemplary professional academic dissertations, where they both hit the archives and made intelligent interviews. They should be used to expand the discussion of Poland. Thiel discusses the Swedish/Lund connection a lot, and has interviews with the US ambassador Davies, Gershman, Chenoweth, etc. Dombar uses archival materials more, but is very careful: He describes smuggling of ink into Poland in Hershey's chocolate syrup containers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• While I think the full split of notes and inline references is very helplful, I do not think it is required for a GA status. If you can add a ref to the "After resigning from SDUSA in 1973..." note, we should be good to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  I wrote "After resigning from SDUSA in 1973, Harrington then founded the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (Isserman 2000, p. 424, footnotes 52-53)."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Passing now. Please note that further cleanup of the references will be needed before a FA class review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Kahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110303170633/http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org:80/oldsite/Kahn.html to http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/oldsite/Kahn.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)