User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

• Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix

• News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

• In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

• WikiProject report: The Oregonians

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress

• Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn#Estrangement with Harrington

Dear Friend,

I have a bit of a problem with this section. What exactly is the source of Rachelle Horowitz's thoughts about this incident? It seems like WP:UNDUE might apply here. If this was simply a misunderstanding by Harrington, and Kahn had nothing to do with writing the speech in question, then why does this incident belong in Kahn's biography? If Kahn didn't write the slurs, then the story says more about the defects in Michael Harrington's political radar at that point in time than it says anything about Tom Kahn. If it is intended to cast light on Kahn's internal conflicts about homosexuality and politics 40 years ago, then that needs to be spelled out a bit more clearly, and referenced solidly. Just my thoughts, based on knowing nothing more about the incident than what you've written here, and that you are a serious student of these matters, while I am little more than a casual but interested passerby. Best regards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen:

I have long shared your concerns about WP:Undue. I first didn't want to write about his mess, and then cautioned on the talk page of the article that care was needed. I think that it would be OR to draw conclusions from the facts presented.

My OR would clearly state that Kahn was subjected to the double-standard that gays or African-Americans often face. They, despite having little power, are supposed to police their organization's for discriminatory practices, and they are blamed and called self-haters, or betrayers, or "Uncle Toms" by people who dislike them for other reasons. And the AFL-CIO of 1972 was not the same AFL-CIO that sponsors Pride at Work. (I don't understand how Meany could have said those words anyhow, given his knowledge of Kahn's being gay, or of Rustin's either.) I suppose that I could reference an academic discussion of double standards, but such a juxtaposition would violate the spirit of WP:OR.

In this case, Horowitz and Puddington may be correct that Isserman should have investigated this charge and documented his conclusion with greater care, with the care for which he is justly renowned on other questions.

RE: Horowitz: Horowitz was a friend of Kahn's through his high school to the end, and a nationally prominent Democratic Party and AFT leader, and she spent a good chunk of the first 2 years of her formal retirement, apparently, writing her article, which is carefully documented. Her conclusion is based on first-hand knowledge. Irving Howe's assessment of her is given in the interview where he discusses Kahn: She was just as smart but would be more generous in discussing Michael Harrington, according to Howe. She does not discuss Newfield's statement that Harrington pitched him the story and gave Newfield the speech.

My concern is that the scape-goating of Kahn appeared not only in Newfield but also in Isserman, and the latter's book is usually very carefully documented (as were his previous books). This is such a serious charge: I don't repeat Newfield's sanctimonious/spiteful evaluation "he betrayed himself". (Given this poisoning, it seems useful to record that Kahn was treated badly, partly because he was gay, by those in SDS: Newfield does not state that he said, "Now, TH Do not throw things at the other Tom, even if you think he's a wimp because he's gay. In fact, you should walk away, you look like you are threatening him".) Then before his death Newfield blames Kahn for Meany's gay-baiting, despite acknowledging that Harrington pitched him the story.

Isserman wrote that Harrington "brooded" over Kahn's actions to "sabotage" the SI application for DSOC or DSOC's 1983 Eurosocialism conference: Isserman wrote that these SI events had an "exaggerated" importance for MH. The PA SDUSA/SPA group had a public apology for these actions, which seems to me a bit melodramatic.

I have not reported about Kahn's giving nasty interviews in 72-73, either, mainly because the WSJ doesn't seem to have them available. Also WP:Undue is relevant.

Let me hear from a few others on the WP:Undue weight question.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush here, and it would be great if a few other voices chimed in. The fact that you are thinking so seriously about the matter is good enough for me. Warm regards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think you know may know that Isserman has gone on to become a well-respected historian of mountaineering, which is one of my pet interests. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember your comments well, as I remember your help with Robert Phelps, for which thanks are again due.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

George Meany

I was going to quip that if you could understand the workings of George Meany's mind, that you would have to be some sort of magician or mystic. So before tossing off a cheap joke, I decided to glance at his biography here on Wikipedia. Oh My Gosh! That article gives lie to those who argue that Wikipedia is pretty much "done". Incredibly weak, incredibly short, totally inadequate. What a sad commentary on Wikipedia's shortcomings in 2011. We have lots of work to do, my friend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I did remove a rant from that. A problem is that for every one Hal Draper there are 50 [enthusiasts without Draper's smarts, honesty, and scholarly sitzfleisch]. I much prefer snake handlers.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks, didnt even realise its been 10 days ;) Agree with your mutuality. just peeved on the blatant HYPOCRISY of stuff one way vs. the other. (a la Bahrain right now (as if only Sunni yankee stooges have the right to freedom)). I know peeps and family in the US marines and the hocus-pocus shit they do knowing they can get away with it.

WP admins are the biggest dictators and hyporcitical s***. We need a 2011 Wikipedia revolution ;)Lihaas (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lihaas,

I'm afraid that you haven't been writing like your normal self the last weeks. Please take it easy.

You are too valuable to this project, the most consulted information source in the world, to get yourself blocked. Your work on the 2011 revolts this years has been more worthwhile than the work of the 50 random administrators combined. Please safeguard yourself and your reputation here, which you have established by years of hard work and cooperation.

Maybe you could help with the articles on Freedom in the World, Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy, and Carl Gershman? The Gershman biography has a DYK needing checking ....

Men with guns are always present a threat, particularly when the armed men are strangers in others' land: Do you remember the Rodney King riots? Men with guns do bad things in the U.S., too. Police departments have only recently been dealing with the problems of domestic violence which have been historically high among police families.

I remember stating that jubilation at the death of Bin Laden was ghoulish but perhaps some grim satisfaction was appropriate, just as my Kurdish friends probably felt after the execution of Saddam Hussein. I trust that Obama will focus on peace negotiations now.

I wish you peace, my friend.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Major modifications to Orthogonal Convex Hull article

Dear Kiefer,

By reviewing the revision history of the Orthogonal convex hull article, I noticed that you made some modifications. Right now I am restructuring and expanding the content of this article, and I would like to know if you are willing to help in its improvement. I have added some templates to the original article, and have an under construction version in my sandbox. This is my first time editing an article, so any comment would be greatly appreciated.--Carlos Alegría (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carlos!

Thanks for remembering my one edit, but it was just to classify the article within the convex hull category. My ignorance is too great for me to be of any use, here, I'm afraid!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

How I learned to stop worrying and to love the AFL-CIO

YPSL >> SDS

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

Look at the discussion of the estrangement between Kahn and Michael Harrington: "Things got pretty bad", as Irving Howe said, is an understatement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The conflict between Kahn and Harrington became "pretty bad", according to Irving Howe. Harrington handed former SDS activist and New York City journalist Jack Newfield a speech by AFL–CIO President George Meany. Addressing the September 1972 Convention of the United Steelworkers of America, Meany had ridiculed the Democratic Party Convention, which had been held in San Francisco:

"We heard from the gay-lib [gay-liberation] people who want to legalize marriage between boys and boys, and between girls and girls. [...] We heard from the people who looked like Jacks, acted like Jills, and had the odor of Johns [customers of prostitutes] about them."

This gay-baiting taunt was attributed to Kahn by Harrington, and repeated by Newfield in his autobiography. Maurice Isserman's biography of Harrington also described this speech as Kahn's self hatred, as "Kahn's resort to gay bashing".

The blaming of Kahn for Meany's speech and Isserman's scholarship have been criticized by Rachelle Horowitz. According to Horowitz, Meany had many speech-writers—two specialists besides Kahn and even more writers from the AFL–CIO's Committee on Political Education (COPE) Department. Horowitz stated, "It is in fact inconceivable that Kahn wrote those words" She quoted a concurring assessment from Arch Puddington: [Isserman] "assumes that because Kahn was not publicly gay he had to be a gay basher. He never was."

In 1991, even after Harrington's 1989 death, Howe warned Harrington's biographer, Maurice Isserman, that Kahn's description of Harrington "may well be a little nasty" and "hard line".

Joshua Muravchik

I added a footnote with the nice letter/critique/review of Manny Muravchik of his son's book. What a nice man and what an honorable family!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He describes himself as a neo-conservative, despite the disapproval of his social-democratic father and socialist mother.

His father criticized his Heaven on earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism:

"Josh Muravchik’s father, Manny, eighty-five-years-old, breathing through oxygen tubes, [was] handing out his own two-page Xeroxed affirmation of socialism." "Manny let the reader know that his own life, and that of Josh’s mother, would be impossible today absent the very sort of anti-market reforms—Medicare, rent-controlled apartments—for which they’d worked while Josh was still a pisher and toward which he sounded at best ambivalent today." "Father told son that if there was utopian impulse to be feared, it was that messianic laissez-faire nonsense he must have picked up once he’d left home. You think your mother and I could survive in your perfect world, Mr. Capitalist Shill?

His mother was too upset with his book to attend the discussion.

YPSL

Hey K. Wolf--

One of the minor annoyances in my life is the way the acronym YPSL redirects to the (post-1972) Young People's Socialist League page, rather than to Young People's Socialist League (1907). Since this now is a salad including a whole number of groups, most with no connection to the actual name, and those with the name with no legitimate continuity to the original organization, what do you say about the idea of renaming the YPSL page something like American Socialist Youth Movement (1972-date) or some such? Alternatively, the SDUSA, SPUSA, DSOC youth sections each to be split to their own pages.

The main redirect link for YPSL should go to the original 1907-1972 organization, in my view.

Thoughts? Carrite (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite's recommendation, and consider the 1907-1972 group to be vastly more notable than the later attempted reincarnations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carrite and Cullen!

Nice to hear an editorial question for a change.

The SPA's 1907-1972 YPSL is well document and easily notable, while the SPUSA's "YPSL" is much lesser known and may not be notable. Thus, YPSL should link to the SPA's youth section.

• The SDUSA/YPSL quickly became Young Social Democrats; I suspect that YSD and Frontlash (of the AFL-CIO) coordinated many activities.
• The DSOC/DSA Youth Section became Young Democratic Socialists in the 1990s. I believe that their most notable event was co-organizing A March Against Draft Registration.
• I never heard of the SPUSA's YPSL, before I read that the PA SDUSA/SPUSA group has charged that that name is a legally misappropriated. Its website had been folded into the SPUSA's, the last time I checked.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Carl Gershman

Hi Carrite!

Your comments are welcome on Carl Gershman. You may find his discussion of American radicalism stimulating, although you need not share his preference for Woodrow Wilson over Karl Marx!

;)

Notice that he did not sign the 1993 "America needs a social-democratic movement", if my eyes see correctly.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

blanking self. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wilson's treatment of Debs was abominable, granted, I detest Wilson's anti-semitism, etc. But his attempts to reduce the punitive WWI peace accords were worthy efforts. I've not read Keynes, but I suppose his comments on the peace treaty may contain some interesting discussion of Wilson, perhaps ...?

Please remember Gershman and the NED's support of Solidarity, when you lay yourself down to sleep.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rescued Vietnamese boat-people being given water.

The Goddess of Liberty, a memorial to the Tiannamenn Square movement, by the Chinese people of Hong Kong. See also Tank Man.

I understand that many people were horrified by the conduct of the Vietnam War. However, it is important to consider the victims of communism, who were left defenseless when the U.S. withdrew.

Have you read the account of Hanoi's crack-down against democrats in the recent Dissent (magazine)? (It is important to remember that "Justice is always a fugitive from the victorious side.")

I think that many people, including most of my Harringtonian friends, have difficulty considering whether Gershman and others may have been correct, in many many matters, or even acknowledging that Gershman and others in SDUSA had legitimate concerns and behaved to protect civilians from reprisals from a ruthless regime:

• Rustin, Bayard; Gershman, Carl (1978). Africa, Soviet imperialism and the retreat of American power. SD papers. Vol. 2. New York: Social Democrats, USA. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Gershman, Carl (1978). "After the dominoes fell". Commentary. SD papers. 3. New York: Social Democrats, USA: 89–93. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Bayard Rustin's interview had an intelligent and honest discussion of his difficulties as a former pacifist:

• Anonymous; Rustin, Bayard (1982), Interview with Bayard Rustin, 1982 (41:03:24 minutes, video interview with synchronized transcript), Open Vault Media Archives, WGBH {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Text "cite web" ignored (help)

You had written before that the SDUSA article needed a description of "rightward movement": Is that description really WP:NPOV? Is it really so "right-wing" to stop quoting Marx and to quote Jefferson instead? (I like both, wishing that Marx was not so nasty all the time ....)

Justice Hugo Black's dissent affirms the right of revolution

Consider the case of George Anastaplo, who was barred from ever practicing law simply because he stated that American constitutional law supported the right of revolution discussed in the Declaration of Independence. You should read the dissent by Justice Hugo Black, the whole of which has been added to WikiMedia: "The effect of the Court's 'balancing' here is that any State may now reject an applicant for admission to the Bar if he believes in the Declaration of Independence as strongly as Anastaplo and if he is willing to sacrifice his career and his means of livelihood in defense of the freedoms of the First Amendment. But the men who founded this country and wrote our Bill of Rights were strangers neither to a belief in the 'right of revolution' nor to the urgency of the need to be free from the control of government with regard to political beliefs and associations. Thomas Jefferson was not disclaiming a belief in the 'right of revolution' when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. And Patrick Henry was certainly not disclaiming such a belief when he declared in impassioned words that have come on down through the years: 'Give me liberty or give me death.' This country's freedom was won by men who, whether they believed in it or not, certainly practiced revolution in the Revolutionary War. Since the beginning of history there have been governments that have engaged in practices against the people so bad, so cruel, so unjust and so destructive of the individual dignity of men and women that the 'right of revolution' was all the people had left to free themselves. As simple illustrations, one government almost 2,000 years ago burned Christians upon fiery crosses and another government, during this very century, burned Jews in crematories. I venture the suggestion that there are countless multitudes in this country, and all over the world, who would join Anastaplo's belief in the right of the people to resist by force tyrranical governments like those. In saying what I have, it is to be borne in mind that Anastaplo has not indicated, even remotely, a belief that this country is an oppressive one in which the 'right of revolution' should be exercised. [1] Quite the contrary, the entire course of his life, as disclosed by the record, has been one of devotion and service to his country-first, in his willingness to defend its security at the risk of his own life in time of war and, later, in his willingness to defend its freedoms at the risk of his professional career in time of peace. The one and only time in which he has come into conflict with the Government is when he refused to answer the questions put to him by the Committee about his beliefs and associations. And I think the record clearly shows that conflict resulted, not from any fear on Anastaplo's part to divulge his own political activities, but from a sincere, and in my judgment correct, conviction that the preservation of this country's freedom depends upon adherence to our Bill of Rights. The very most that can fairly be said against Anastaplo's position in this entire matter is that he took too much of the responsibility of preserving that freedom upon himself. This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that Anastaplo has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. [2] It shows, not only that Anastaplo has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost. It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law-men like Malsherbes, who, at the cost of his own life and the lives of his family, sprang unafraid to the defense of Louis XVI against the fanatical leaders of the Revolutionary government of France [3]-men like Charles Evans Hughes, Sr., later Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, who stood up for the constitutional rights of socialists to be socialists and public officials despite the threats and clamorous protests of self-proclaimed superpatriots [4]-men like Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., and John W. Davis, who, while against everything for which the Communists stood, strongly advised the Congress in 1948 that it would be unconstitutional to pass the law then proposed to outlaw the Communist Party [5]-men like Lord Erskine, James Otis, Clarence Darrow, and the multitude of others who have dared to speak in defense of causes and clients without regard to personal danger to themselves. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it. But that is the present trend, not only in the legal profession but in almost every walk of life. Too many men are being driven to become government-fearing and time-serving because the Government is being permitted to strike out at those who are fearless enough to think as they please and say what they think. [6] This trend must be halted if we are to keep faith with the Founders of our Nation and pass on to future generations of Americans the great heritage of freedom which they sacrificed so much to leave to us. The choice is clear to me. If we are to pass on that great heritage of freedom, we must return to the original language of the Bill of Rights. We must not be afraid to be free."

I remind you that Karl Marx humbled himself in congratulating Abraham Lincoln upon his Election. Consider whether Marx and Gershman may both be correct in their admiration for the American heritage of the Declaration of Independence...!

:-)

Let us sing Old Time Religion

Give me that old-time Declaration of Independence.

It was good enough for Schenck

It's good enough for me.

It was good enough for Debs, citizen and socialist.

It's good enough for me.

The vision of liberty also inspired the Chinese students of Tienanmen Square.

My friend Carrite, and other readers, greater respect is due a small band of American social democrats, bad mouthed by generations of New Leftists and even by the associates of Michael Harrington, who worked tenaciously for civil rights and democracy in the U.S. and abroad. Perhaps you judge them to have been thinking wishfully about protecting civil society from communism in Vietnam; did they have any influence on Nixon's policy? Do you really think that they helped prolong that war?

At least acknowledge that they worked with all their might to help Poland's Solidarity (with help from the magnificent Swedish labor unions and others)---at least that effort deserves respect!

Ruminating,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Mr. George Anastaplo exchanged letters with Hook in the 1950s.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I think you are confusing whether they moved to the right with whether they were correct to do so. No one is making the argument that SDUSA was a right-wing organization, merely that they were farther to the right than other left-wing organizations. The term "right" here is used in relative not absolute terms. TFD (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TfD,

I publicly was asking Carrite to reconsider his remarks about CG (to which you need not have access). In particular, I asked whether stating that CG had moved to the right (since 1980) was NPOV, and arguing the contrary position.

CG was a leader of SDUSA through 1980. By 1993 CG seems to have stopped signing public statements by SDUSA, so CG's subsequent career seems irrelevant to a description of SDUSA.

Both Carrite and you have previously suggested statements to the effect that SDUSA had moved to the right, the question that I think concerns you now. I would repeat that the trajectories of former SDUSA members does not imply anything about a movement of the organization. Conclusions about organizations require analyses of organizational resolutions/programs/publications or member surveys; anecdotes about individual members acting outside of the organization carry negligible weight. (I noted that anecdotes about Manning Marable's public support of Castro's regime or criticism of Eastern European dissidents says nothing about DSA.)

That said, your qualification that SDUSA was relatively right for organizations on the left is a big improvement over previous statements by many editors.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Although some editors may have belonged to various left-wing groups, I do not see that they are POV-pushing. In any case, whether a party moved to the right is something that we would determine from what sources say rather than through our own judgment. But I do not see anything wrong with scholars basing their views on the actions of individual members. Political parties, especially on the Left, routinely expel members who hold unacceptable political views or support rival parties. They would not appoint Linda Chavez, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, etc.[7] to an organizing committee and invite them to speak at a symposium on socialism. The speakers appear to be more conservative than one would have found in the SPA. Again, the comment is that they had moved to the right, not that they were right-wing. TFD (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi TFD, I am enjoying our civil discussion. :-)

I don't understand your first comment. Maybe I made some off-hand reference to WP:COI elsewhere? I don't believe that I have mentioned anybody's membership here. (I have mentioned Carrite's self-disclosed memberships and my affections elsewhere.)

Of course, we all believe in reliable sources rather than our POV/OR ....

Now, let's discuss your POV/OR, which is very interesting! ;)

Your comments about symposia seem plausible .... However, one should distinguish between the purpose of symposia. If one wishes to attract a crowd or build one's credibility toward the center, then one invites friendly persons as far right as possible (for a serious discussion and civility), because then one appears to embody moderation and good sense.

I could imagine that SDUSA invited Kirkpatrick and Chavez partly to have a transcript where a honest person could see them being criticized by the SDUSA leadership (which was rather amused by the repeated stories that Kirkpatrick and Chavez and Elliot Abrams were SDUSA members, I have been told. You proposed repeating these rumors on Wiki, a few weeks ago!) Joshua Muravichik was widely criticized at various fora, but civilly. He is smart and stimulating, and sometimes funny, so why not invite him?

The symposium was on Muravchik's book, about socialism. For such a discussion, it makes sense to have half the panel be ex-socialists. Do you think liberals ignorant of socialism could carry on a discussion about this topic? It would be like asking the people at Labor Notes to discuss option pricing and quasi-martingales!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You can also see that SDUSA invited Fred Siegel, Jim Chapin, Paul Berman, Harold Meyerson, etc., from DSA or at least from the Michael Harrington/Irving Howe "leftwing of the possible"—essentially people "a little" to their left. They also invited labor leaders associated with DSA, whose names I won't mention.

Meyerson and maybe Muravchik are the only sources that discuss these symposia, imho, and neither draws the conclusion you and Carrite have suggested drawing. Maybe you have greater access to the WSJ, WP, NYT, NewsDay, etc.? Good luck with your searching!

I am sorry to hear about your opinions about organizations expelling people. I have read David McReynolds's blog lamenting about the change of culture in the SPUSA, which was apparently as nice as anybody could have hoped in the 1970s, and the rise of expulsions in the last years, e.g. PA and other states.

McReynolds has also noted a tendency to focus on the pre-1920s era and Marxism, to the exclusion of other parts of the heritage. Too bad David has not edited yet on WP's American Left, at least not identifying himself!

;) *LOL*

I would value David's comments!

I think that DSA and SDUSA tried to maintain a broad and civil "big tent" atmosphere, which would be attractive to members who had experienced enough sectarianism earlier in their lives. In all honesty, DSA's Manning Marable was the only person I ever heard getting "called on the carpet", after he made some criticisms of Eastern Europe dissidents, similar to things CPUSA hacks would write, and I don't think he was expelled; he may have just stepped down from the NEC. I don't remember.

In editorial solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It would be useful to make a list of notable SPUSA members for the SPUSA article: Who are the notable labor leaders, politicians, writers and academics associated with the SPUSA?

I do not see why you call it "wild rumours" that they were SDUSA members. It could be that their memberships lapsed before the change of name. Lipset for example left the SPA in 1960. Muravchick was also in the SPA. But the entire SDUSA organizing committee seems to be socialists or former socialists. But as you say, we should not engage in OR, merely reflect what sources say, which is that SDUSA moved to the right. Saying they tried to appeal to the center is saying they moved to the right. TFD (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I know of no reliable source that states that SDUSA moved to the right.

SDUSA was known mainly through the activities of a few members. I have wished you luck finding coverage of SDUSA's conventions and actions after the 1970s: I doubt that you can find a reliable source covering SDUSA. Have you found anything?

There was very little coverage of DSA either, and most of it was devoted to Michael Harrington and written as personal interest stories, like updates on the tallest skyscrapers of Topeka Kansas rather than as serious political coverage.

Again, we have profound disagreements. Socialists in the 1950s and 1960s were active in the civil rights movement and the anti-poverty movement and successfully appealed to the center. Like Norman Thomas, Norman Rockwell was not alone in the belief that a little black girl should be able to go to a school, just as much as a little white boy.

Similarly, socialists supported Solidarity because it was the right thing to do, and that support was effective because they had ties to Republicans and because the U.S. had a history of bipartisan foreign policy---just as Sweden has had a history of civilized foreign policy---which excluded the Swedish communist party as being undemocratic at least through Tag Erlander's långst leadership.

Democrats and democratic socialists have long appealed to the center---even Communists like Marx and Gramsci thought that appealing to the majority was useful, and obligatory. Movements that are democratic and wish to accomplish something must make some appeals to the center.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You are saying they did not appeal to the right, they appealed to the center. That's just semantics. Unfortunately, SDUSA was so small and ineffectual that only section devoted to it in any book is from Busky's overview of social democracy. Certainly there were civil rights leaders who were members of the SPA, but the the SPA did not play a leading role in anything in its final decades. TFD (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, you might consider whether Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, James Farmer, Stokely Carmichael, etc., etc., might know more than you about the role of socialists in the civil rights movement. Not all parts of the SPA carried on the tradition of Victor Berger.

About inefficacy: The members seemed to have led many major unions, nationally, and they also seemed to have done the Lord's work in helping Poland's Solidarity: Again, I would submit that Solidarity and the post-Communist Polish government may know more than you.

23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)~

You are using two logical fallacies - the argument from authority and the argument ad hominem. And doing "the Lord's work" is wacky. The rules of logic have equal application to social sciences. I see no evidence that these people made the same conclusions that you did, and in any case it would not be relevant to the discussion. TFD (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, When you have a reliable source backing up your POV, put it on the discussion page of the article and we'll discuss something concrete.

It's a fact that SDUSA members did much (perhaps most) of the organizing for the AFL-CIO's support for Solidarity, which made a huge difference to Poland and the world. Your stating that they were ineffective is just baloney.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No one disputes that SDUSA members did things, some even served in the Reagan adminstration, but that is not the same thing as saying the party did anything. TFD (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, take it to the talk page of the article. If you can write something that improves the article, then I should be delighted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Please check/verify the DYK nomination for Carl Gershman:

• ... that the President of the National Endowment for Democracy, Carl Gershman, served with the "domestic Peace Corps"—Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)—in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania during 1965–1967?

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I do intend to do this (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). I've actually mostly finished the review, but I quit to cogitate on how the hook could be made to be punchier. (Also, it would be nice to know -- for the article -- what he did in Pittsburgh, but that may be too much to ask.) --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Orlady!

Your review would be great!

I shortened my first version, in a gloomy funk about the lack of historical awareness of our audience. (Only a few hundred people looked at Tom Kahn's DYK ....) Gershman's personal papers lists publications, and many are in Pittsburgh newspapers. Finding more details might involve OR or involve primary sources about his life.

I think JSTOR had one mention of Gershman and VISTA, but I believe that it was a comment that Gershman had written criticism of SDS's version of community organizing (but I would bet only my lunch money and need high odds to accept a wager!).

I first suggested his YPSL activism in my first hook (on the article's talk page). However, I dropped this hook, given his tendency to keep distance between YPSL/SDUSA in his youth, in the last decades, per WP:BLP and DYK suggestions.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)