Talk:Saul Alinsky/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why is there no CRITICISM?

All figures have negative qualities, and Alinsky is definitely no exception with his extreme focus on tactics and not the overall strategy of what he does, as evidenced by some of the books he writes. This article sounds way too sugar-coated, as if it were written by a fan with the pretension of sounding objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.3.24 (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Useless article

Other than a vague reference to "voting for social justice" there isn't a single word in this article about what Saul Alinsky's actual political beliefs were. Shouldn't an article about a person famous as an ideological leader be devoted mostly to his ideology, and not to irrelevant crap like a long list of people who may or may not agree with whatever it is Saul Alinsky taught (and what that was, one could not say from this article)?RockinRobbin 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alinsky is regarded more for his methods than his particular policy positions. His notability rises from his techniques of community and grassroots organization -- lessons it could be argued have been applied by Democrats and Republicans alike, particularly in Karl Rove's "get out the base" push in the past two presidential elections. See this article: [1]. --208.58.3.202 16:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This article in not useless. Saul Alinsky founded the field of community organizing and has had a profound effect on organizing methods in America. The influence of his teachings is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Saul Alinsky was, if not a communist, at minimum an active socialist, and the term "community organizer" as applied to him sounds like a more palatable moniker perhaps intended, if that was the case, for public consumption in place of 'communist' or 'socialist'. "Working for social justice", in my experience, has often been palatable code for "socialist" and this is one reason I give it at least nominal credence that the man may have been one as I have been told by others.

-There is nothing wrong with this article. Saul Alinsky should absolutely be labeled as a RADICAL activist who sought to achieve power through the complete disruption of the existing system. Community organizer, yes. Expert at propoganda, yes. There should also be a complete reference section devoted to all the members of government and government funded organizations that follow the teaching of Alinsky. He did not work for 'social justice', rather 'social divisiveness'.Samnedworthy (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree -- from what I know, Alinsky is usually referenced as a non- or an anti-communist. His book, "Rules for Radicals" has in the byline "realistic" i.e. non-revolutionary.

Biography?

There is no biography. 202.149.24.248 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed as of 21 Sep 2008. The article now has more biographical information, references, and links to the early childhood and background of Alinsky and his work, writings, and contributions to the field of organizing for power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Death?

Does anyone know how or why Alinsky died? Seems like it happened very soon after he published Rules for Radicals. Don't know that it is relevant to the article, but I am curious.--Chinawhitecotton 08:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) smoking

Alinsky died of a heart attack at the age of 63 on June 12, 1972. AletaP 14:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My father died of a Coronary Thrombosis on the morning of June 12, 1972 as he was leaving the dry cleaner's in Carmel, CA. It was a natural event.

Alinsky was a fascinating individual. This article should be far better than it is. Consult his 1971 Playboy interview for great insights into the man and his work. George415 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the Playboy interview. It is a good read. Here is a link to it: http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm for those interested. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Of course we can't know for sure if it was natural. The CIA developed assassination guns that shot a tiny frozen splinter of poison into the body. The tiny entrance wound would be virtually undetectable, and the cause of death would be heart attack (coronary thrombosis). Supposedly the poisions used would break down soon after death, and thus be undetectable. 71.221.89.250 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A ridiculous conspiracy theory and pure speculation by the above poster. He died of natural causes to my knowledge. I will try to find the exact cause and if appropriate, add it. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright

I was very pleased to see an image of Alinksy in the article. However, according to the copyright tag:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate the book in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

The guidelines are quite specific that fair use 'covers the book in question'. Isn't this a guideline violation? One may disagree with United States copyright law, but shouldn't we show some respect for Wikipedia's copyright guidelines, and some understanding of their legal situation? Potentially, any single copyright violation could cause an entire encylopedia distribution to be subject to legal action - Crosbiesmith 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly is your complaint? Deyyaz 13:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This image is, in addition to that use, being use to illustrate the subject of this article. That also falls under "Fair Use". So, no conflict. --NightMonkey 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ANY image can be used by Wikipedia under Fair Use, copyrighted or not. Wikipedia is educational and non-profit. Full stop.

It's completely false to suggest that educational or nonprofit uses are not subject to the copyright laws. The copyright laws apply whether you're educating or not, whether you're trying to make a profit or not. (Full stop indeed.)

His pictures and images are widely used and reprinted without any attribution of the ultimate source in many public articles. Personally I think many of the above comments are over reactions to use of a picture now widely in the public domain and used in many places in articles about him. I don't know why a picture of him cannot be uploaded. Does anyone know how to find a picture in the public domain of him and upload it. I see no serious objections to doing so. It is done in many other articles. If so, would you please do so. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dedication of "Rules for Radicals"

A user has been editing the page to say that "Rules for Radicals" was dedicated to Lucifer. This is not true. Please give a citation if you're going to make such claims. The book is dedicated to "Irene."

71.221.89.250 05:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On the following page there is a jesting reference to "Lucifer," but to call this a dedication is to take it entirely out of context. Alinsky was known to be a character, even once suggesting a rally where everyone ate lots of baked beans and went into an Opera House for the rich. He called it a "fart-in." Although some might call this "confrontational," it's actually quite funny. Laughter has quite a cleansing effect on the soul. On the same page with the Lucifer jest there are also quotes from Thomas Paine and Rabbi Hillel.

71.221.89.250 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the book:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.

Why isn't this quote about Lucifer worth including in this Wikiepedia excerpt? People should recognize that many will say that Alinsky was a communist or at least a socialist and this coincides with the philosphy of attacking an establishment in a similar manner as Lucifer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.64.21 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a jest as suggested above. The comment that laughter has a cleansing effect on the soul sounds like an attempt to change the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.255.165 (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed by pointing out the comment about Lucifer was not as dedicating the book to Lucifer. His book was dedicated to Irene. But the comment was made by Alinsky as an epigraph in the front matter of his book Rules for Radicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs)

Alinsky is being misrepresented

The article states that Alinsky "encouraged controversy and conflict, often to the dismay of middle-class activists who otherwise would sponsor his activism." This is an utter distortion, and indeed the citation given to support this claim actually supports the opposite:

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year (in 1971). They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."

Perhaps the same folks claiming that "Rules for Radicals" was dedicated to Lucifer are involved in this?

71.221.89.250 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. He IS being misrepresented. Saul Alinsky did NOT belong to the "non-socialist left." He was a RADICAL (hence the title) socialist. Comparing him to Thomas Paine is an absolute insult to the freedom loving man who gave us "Common Sense.

This has been addressed by pointing out the comment about Lucifer was not as dedicating the book to Lucifer. It was dedicated to Irene. But the comment was made by Alinsky as an epigraph in the front matter of his book Rules for Radicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"

Who cares if Clinton wrote a thesis on Alinsky?

This is immaterial to the article.

71.221.89.250 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is interesting and notable. I added a line and cite on the Hillary Clinton page. There is some speculation that her work and writing about Alinksy may (or may not) have affected her subsequent political journey. As she is a US senator and candidate for US President, I think it is notable and worth keeping.Kevinp2 17:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I still don't think it belongs in an article on Alinsky. It does indeed belong in the Clinton article, but she was not a student of Alinsky. She simply wrote an undergraduate thesis on his work. She never worked at the IAF, either, as noted below. I don't think the fact that she is running for president justifies including this in the article, unless in the context of a larger section on prominent figures who studied Alinsky's work, which would be a separate and much larger section from "Students of Alinsky." To qualify as a "Student of Alinsky," she would have had to have taken his teachings to heart. Even in her thesis she was critical of his philosophy, and she only seems to have continuously diverged from it afterward.

CelestialDog 20:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hillary choosing Alinsky to write about for a college thesis demonstrates the importance and influence of Alinksy on the field or organizing for power, especially community organizing of community churches and the like for political action and social revolution. Alinsky has influenced several very prominent political leaders to varying degrees. But Obama mastered Alinsky's techniques as demonstrated in his using such tactics to easily defeat Hillary in caucus type elections where the Alinsky community organizing rules and tactics for political power are most effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Clinton never a student at IAF

Removed Clinton from list of students at IAF. She was offered a job, turned it down to attend law school. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/page/3/

Saul Alinsky is a mentor of Hillary Clinton. The book Rules for Radicals, is the play book for Hillary on how to turn America into a Socialist society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrmatt2 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Obama was hired by and worked for Gerald/Jerry Kellman in South Chicago, an ideological disciple of Alinsky. Obama learned the Alinsky methods and ultimately mastered Alinsky's techniques by becoming an instructor of Alinsky methods of organizing, and as demonstrated in his using such tactics to easily defeat Hillary in caucus type elections where the Alinsky community organizing rules and tactics for political power are most effective. Obama's ground game based on the Alinsky method was far superior to Hillary's in the caucus type elections. Hillary was influenced by Alinsky's teachings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html) and may have used Alinsky techniques from time to time in her elections but never mastered them to the level that Obama has. Obama not only mastered them, but he instructed other community organizers in the rules and tactics developed by Alinsky and codified in Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals. See this link for summary of Alinsky's rules for mass organizing for power: http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm See the quote from Alinsky's son reprinted in an IVD editorial as to how well Alinsky's son thought Obama has learned the Alinsky method of mass organizing for power: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306457496204115 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

extended quote

I am not sure of the need for the extended quote.

Also, is this quote from Rules or Reville? It is credited to Reville but dated for Rules. Just wondering.

Cm1165 01:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)cm1165

Try spelling it "Reveille."Lestrade (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

---

The long quote originated from the fact that a citation was being given to support a claim, when the citation actually supported the opposite. We could whittle down the quote a bit, but I think it is helpful for understanding Alinsky's philosophy of truly democratic organizing and open, non-hostile communication between groups to develop a true democracy - a philosophy that Hillary Clinton rejected in her thesis, by the way, choosing the path of elitism. I know that's off topic for this question :)

71.221.89.250 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV never forever

Howdy. I see that user User:Abarry slapped the NPOV tag on this article back on 2/26, without listing specific objections or goals for improvement. NPOV cannot be used to just slag an article forever. It exists to assist (and insist) that editors fix the article, because the person applying the tag is either too lazy to fix it themselves, or is being prevented from fixing it by other agressive editors. The NPOV tag should not be idly applied to an article without other methods being attempted to fix the problem.

I'm going to remove the tag. If it is re-applied, it must be re-applied with specific references to sections or form which violates the NPOV policy. I'm not saying that this article doesn't deserve this tag, but it has to be applied fairly and with specifics on what the tagger expects to see fixed to be able to remove the tag. Cheers! --NightMonkey 20:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Birth and Upbringing

The article contains nothing of his early life. Were his parents rich, poor, or middle class? What was his educational background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juntoboys (talk • contribs) 08:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A sentence and link to a reference about his parents being Russian Jewish immigrants has been added. The ultimate source is his book Reveille for Radicals. See this link for more information on Alinsky's parents and his early childhood: http://www.uubedford.org/sermons/alinsky.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs)

This article needs more info

I am not an expert on Saul Alinsky, but this article makes it sound like all he did was be a community organizer encouraging people to register to vote. I believe there was more to him then that to be explained or defended . Here is a quote from Time Magazine from 1970: Referenced here: [2]

In his [Alinsky’s] view, the end of achieving power justifies a range of means...If the occasion requires, Alinsky’s forces will not refrain from spreading rumors about an antagonist or indulging in something that comes very close to blackmail.

There is also mention that Alinsky believed that he needed to create an "enemy" in order to translate community interest into community action.

The fact that this article is so short on specifics makes me believe that those who know about him are hiding details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.255.165 (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

More specifics have been added about Alinsky's 'rules' and tactics. See this link for example: http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I take umbrage with the following line:

(made famous by Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle on the allegedly horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards)

First of all, it was not made famous, but rather, infamous. This constitutes a misuse of the English language. Second of all, using allegedly as an adjective for horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards is utterly outrageous. It is analogous to saying that the Jewish Holocaust was allegedly deleterious to Jewish culture in Europe. It's pure B.S., plain and simple. Just as the Jewish Holocaust did occur, the "working conditions in the Union Stock Yards..." were truly horrific.
Unless someone objects, I'm going to change the line to:

(made infamous by Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle on the allegedly horrific working conditions in the Union Stock Yards) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbahn (talk • contribs) 10:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Sinclair's The Jungle is a novel, aka a work of FICTION, it's both offensive to compare it to the Holocaust, and inappropriate in terms of Wikipedia policy to act as if its claims cannot be questioned. DarthSquidward (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My dear DarthSquidward--
I apologize for the unseemly delay of my reply. You say that The Jungle is a work of fiction. I say that that is irrelevant. From the article The Jungle I quote the following:
Although Sinclair originally intended to focus on industrial labor and working conditions, food safety became the most pressing issue. Sinclair's account of workers' falling into rendering tanks and being ground, along with animal parts, into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard", gripped public attention. The morbidity of the working conditions, as well as the exploitation of children and women alike that Sinclair exposed showed the corruption taking place inside the meat packing factories. Foreign sales of American meat fell by one-half. In order to calm public outrage and demonstrate the cleanliness of their meat, the major meat packers lobbied the Federal government to pass legislation paying for additional inspection and certification of meat packaged in the United States. [3] Their efforts, coupled with the public outcry, led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Food and Drug Administration.

Although the meatpackers lobbied the government for legislation, they did not welcome regulations. Sinclair and President Theodore Roosevelt were both integral to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Roosevelt was sent multiple copies of The Jungle, including one by Sinclair himself, prompting his curiosity about meat inspection, but not much else. After much persuasion from Sinclair as to the seriousness of the situation, Roosevelt agreed to send two men to investigate Sinclair's claims. The men the president chose, Charles P. Neill and James B. Reynolds, had both done investigative work for Roosevelt before, and were thought trustworthy. Sinclair wanted Roosevelt to send his inspectors into the factories so they could see how poorly the workers were being treated; he wanted the nation to become better educated on the issue of "wage slavery". Instead of acknowledging the poor conditions and inhumane treatment of the workers, the men reported only on the cleanliness, or lack thereof, in these packing factories.

Even though the meat packers had forewarning and time to clean up, the conditions Neill and Reynolds observed were described as "revolting". The only claim in Sinclair's work which they failed to substantiate was that workers who had fallen into rendering vats were left and sold as lard. Roosevelt was so concerned about the impact of Neill and Reynold's report on western stock growers and European meat importers that he did not release the findings for publication. Instead, he helped the issue by dropping hints from the report, alluding to disgusting conditions and inadequate inspection measures.

So: It is my contention that you are engaging in historical revisionism by implying that The Jungle is not a reliable source. I respectfully await your reply.
--NBahn (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see that I am truly an ass, for I now see that the change I advocated for has, in fact, been put into affect. I ASSUMED that this was not the case (Yes, yes, I know; when you assume you make an ass of you and me. I can only say in my defense that I am only human.).
--NBahn (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The change has been put into effect.Lestrade (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

NPOV Check

This article contains a lot of bias, specifically against Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Candidate, and Senator Hillary Clinton. It also seems that a number of references are to controversial sources such as Jerrome Corsi who has had much criticism in the past for his misinformation. It does seem from the above conversation that the article as a whole is questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N@vi (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing Obama mentioned very much, and I don't see anything non-factual or critical. Please elaborate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.249.133 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is not biased and reflects who Alinsky was, his teachings, his writings, and his tremendous influence on the field of organizing in general in American labor, communities, and politics, and especially in the new field of community organizing of community churches and the like for political action. Community organizing is a field of organizing which Alinsky basically created, perfected, and codified. Any bias attributed in reading this article is likely in the mind of the person who put this article on NPOV because they would prefer to hide the influence of Alinsky's teachings on Obama and his early career in South Chicago as a community organizer working for organizations of the Alinsky school of community organizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The last comment on this is over by 10 months, and there hasn't been anything posted about the alleged NPOV in this article since then. . I see nothing here that is POV. I think that the warning should be removed. I will remove it unless someone complains. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article mention that Alinsky was a communist? Alinsky freely - even proudly - states it in his book, Rules for Radicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.204.2 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Father of community organizing" and "American Jew" category

I changed both of these and then they were changed back. I am not saying that he wasn't the father of community organizing. It is just that, to my taste anyway, an encyclopedia should use literal wording. I think it would be better to say something like: He was one of the most important and influential early community organizers, rather than use the metaphor "father." On the second issue, the article does not say he was Jewish. Therefore he does not seem to be defined as an American Jew. Just mention his Jewish identity in the article and then I would have no objection to giving him the category. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that his Jewish parentage is mentioned. Sorry if I missed it before. (I still think the category could be questioned unless he considered his Jewishness important. I don't know if he did or not.) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A sentence and link to a reference about his parents being Russian Jewish immigrants has been added. The ultimate source is his book Reveille for Radicals. See this link for more information on Alinsky's parents and his early childhood: http://www.uubedford.org/sermons/alinsky.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the word father to founder. He created the field of community organizing as we know it today. I think the use of father in this context is perfectly OK. But the word founder works just as well and accommodates the objections to using the word father in this context. As I said previously, I have added a sentence and reference to his being the son of Russian Jewish immigrants. I think I have addressed all your objections via these changes.

Yes. Thanks. No problem now. I kind of knew he was Jewish from both his first and last name. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And agreed. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lucifer quote

I would rather see some discussion of what he really believed than the sneaky, backdoor mention of this hard to pin down the context and intention of quote. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an epigraph in his book Rules for Radicals. See: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?6acfde0577.jpg . It is included in the article about Alinsky to illustrates his well known dark and irreverent sense of humor. Another example in his writings are his darker, irreverent, and to him humorous idea to use flatulation tactics to disrupt the operas and theaters attended by the "haves". It think it is very fair to include this epigraph from his major book. After all Alinsky thought it was important enough to put it there. It shows a side of Alinsky worth briefly mentioning. Some say he dedicated his book to Lucifer. He did not. He dedicated it to Irene. But he did enjoy and relish the analogy of being a rebel and using an agitating style of community organizing, and Lucifer as the very first example of same in his words. I will add the word irreverent to the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama Nation

I don't think the book Obama Nation should be considered a reliable source. Please check out its article. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That you do not think Obama Nation is a reliable source is a matter of your opinion. I have read it and other books about Obama and of course the subject of this article, Alinsky. Obama Nation was a number one best seller in the NY Times list for many weeks. While some small number of specific items in it have been technically wrong such as Obama's marriage date, most of the other information regarding Obama's relationship with the Alinsky school and Alinsky disciples of South Chicago has held up since it is heavily sourced. The book of course has been bad mouthed by the left and praised by the right. It is a source for information for some material in this article as to the influence of Alinsky's teachings and writings and disciples such as Gerald/Jerry Kellman had on Obama, but very little of The Obama Nation is used in this article (just one link) and those facts are also backed by crossed references to other sources for the same facts. It think this article is very unbiased toward any prominent political leader who has been influenced by Olinsky. Obama is actually mentioned very little in this article. But to leave of an Alinsky school organizer who has now risen to be nominated to be President of the USA would be a discredit to the legacy of Alinsky. Someone in the media in the current political environment should ask Obama directly if he was influenced as a community organizer by Alinsky's teachings and writings. It would be interesting to watch his answer. Obama himself said his years as a community organizer in South Chicago was the best education he ever had. But he seems to avoid mentioning Alinsky's name. Just like now he avoids discussing the Rev. Wright. He disassociates himself from anyone in his past who he now finds to be for whatever reason to be potentially embarrassing to his political aspirations. Hower, Alinsky himself would be proud to see how far and fast Obama has gone from his days as a community organizer in South Chicago. Alinsky was raised Jewish but was an athiest in his adult life, as I recall. But I would like to think he is up there looking down with a big smile as he watches Obama "community organize" on a massive and national scale to try to win the highest office in the land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph about Obama being skilled in the "Alinsky Method" as being incoherent and poorly sourced. Obama Nation is not a reliable source about Obama for certain. The other sources are Obama's own piece (which does not say he is skilled or call the Alinsky Method a proper noun to be distinguished in this way), a blog, and an article that says that Obama was influenced by Alinsky's methods. All of this is a rather odd thesis that is not terribly well supported. At best one can say there is an ideological or practical lineage. But calling Obama an Alinsky-ite seems to be a stretch. I am also concerned with the POV aspect because saying bad things about Alinsky and community organizing, then tying Obama to them, has become a minor talking point in anti-Obama circles having to do with the presidential campaign. We ought to be on the lookout for that. Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor who seems to be camping out here has reverted the change, citing a reason that is basically a personal attack.[3] Based on the editor's contributions on this subject at The Obama Nation's article and talk pages it is pretty clear this new WP:SPA is not editing with much awareness of our content or behavior standards. They have been adding poorly written, poorly sourced material to both. We should probably review all of his/her contributions in the past few weeks for bias, sourcing, and quality. Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

These two reversions[4][5] are simply personal attacks accusing me of "bad faith" and "vandalism." This is a tendentious WP:SPA who seems to be reading policies for buzz words to use against other editors, and parroting warnings given him/her about disruptive behavior. There is no retrivution intended - I have simply spotted a problem editor who has made single-purpose disruptive contributions to several related articles, as explained above. I have explained why they do not belong in the encyclopedia, above. In the first case there is no demonstration at all that Jerry Kellman is a "prominent national leader" or even notable (he does not seem to be), so he is poorly sourced. In the second, I see no reliable sources that Obama was a "skilled practitioner" in the "Obama Method" - that seems made up. No reliable sources were cited for the proposition, and when I google the subject all I get are occasional anti-Obama blogs and editorials. This all seems like a WP:COATRACK against Obama. If any editor wants to include the disputed material they ought to discuss it here rather than edit war. 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Note for the record - I am at 3RR on this, which I consider a reasonable alternative to dispute resolution given the patterns of the editor I am dealing with. However, I am aware of 3RR limits and will not further revert on this. If this editor persists in this article or elsewhere we probably have a behavior problem we will have to deal with through administrative remedy. We have tried without success to educate the person about content and behavior policies, and I do not see any likelihood of a productive dispute resolution. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama Nation is no longer a source for anything in this article. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wordpress is not a reliable source

This should go without saying, but just a reminder to anyone and everyone involved in editing this and other contentious articles: Opinion blogs and editorials are only considered reliable sources for the opinions of their authors, not for statements of fact about their subjects. Thank you. --GoodDamon 02:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with further references to Washington Post and Reuters news articles, and re-arranging reference links for clarity. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And neither is "freeimagehost"

Pictures can be photoshopped and faked. A massive number of the citations in this article are to photographs stored at an image hosting site, and should be removed post-haste. Rather than piece-meal remove them and sift through the large amount of additions made by a particular single-purpose account primarily responsible for the introduction of poorly-sourced content to this article, I propose the article be reverted to an agreed-upon revision prior to those edits. For various reasons, I will not make that change myself, at least not immediately. Rather, I would like to gain consensus on such a reversion first. And if such consensus cannot be reached, I would appeal to the community to provide rationale for the use of poor cites such as the images in question. If no one responds here, I will lodge a formal RfC. --GoodDamon 15:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[[User_talk:GoodDamon|Damon] GoodDamon and buddy WikiDemon and others are on a mission to wreck this page. How neutral and fair you are as one editor in Wikipedia. So you now think you OWN Wikipedia and its rules and what can be written about Alinsky. And again you are using intimidation ignoring what you did. You removed an entire paragaph about Gerald Kellman hiring Obama and Obama's success working for Alinsky spawned organizations in South Chicago. You could have deleted some references and left the rest. But you deleted it all. See the Wiki rules and the warning you got from Wike about that when you or WikiDemon filed the complaint about me which then got you blocked too for doing such things and thus encouraging edit warring. The paragraph cited the Washington Post story for Gerald Kellman hiring Obama and also cited how skilled Obama became as a community organizer, a job and job title that Alinsky pioneered. It also literally mentions the "Alinsky method" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152_4.html . You obviously did not read the article and are shooting from the lip. See page 4 and page 1, if you choose again not to read the referenced article. You have obviously not read the article and are objecting to my paragraph on the influence of Alinsky method for personal biased reasons, imo. The person who put you on block told you that. You could have deleted just the references you didn't like, but the Washington Post reference and article supports all statements made in the paragraph all by itself. It was not quoting the Washington Post. It is a paragraph summarizing the article in the Washington post about Alinsky's influences on Barack Obama, a candidate for the USA. Keep it up. You in effect reported yourself the last time by your actions. I guess I will have to file a report about you and your other so called neutral buddies that you are trying to OWN the Alinsky article and hide the impact of Alinsky's ideology on modern, prominent politics and leaders in the country. Alinsky would be proud that he has two people who studied his ideology, tactics, and methods and became candidates for the Presidency of the USA. You apparently wish to hide it for you own personal reasons. You and your buddy WikiDemon, etc., who descended on the Saul Alinsky page are not neutral and objective editors. You are on a mission. It is obvious. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with further references to Washington Post and Reuters news articles, and re-arranging reference links for clarity. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Addition of poorly-sourced material for use as citations

Should the article be reverted to a revision prior to the widespread introduction of blogs and images at an image hosting site as citations for claims about the article's subject in relation to Barack Obama and others? --GoodDamon 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Damon All such disputed links have been removed by GoodDamon and crowd already. The Washington Post article supports the disputed paragraph all by itself. It literally mentions the "Alinsky method" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152_4.html GoodDamon and buddy WikiDemon and others are on a mission to wreck the this page and scrub it to serve their mission. How neutral and fair you are as one editor in Wikipedia. So you now think you OWN Wikipedia and its rules and what can be written about Alinsky. And again you are using intimidation ignoring what you did. You removed an entire paragaph about Gerald Kellman hiring Obama and Obama's success working for Alinsky spawned organizations in South Chicago. You could have deleted some references and left the rest. But you deleted it all. See the Wiki rules and the warning you got from Wike about that when you or WikiDemon filed the complaint about me which then got you blocked too for doing such things and thus encouraging edit warring. The paragraph cited the Washington Post story for Gerald Kellman hiring Obama and also cited how skilled Obama became as a community organizer, a job and job title that Alinsky pioneered. It also literally mentions the "Alinsky method" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152_4.html . You obviously did not read the article and are shooting from the lip. See page 4 and page 1, if you choose again not to read the referenced article. You have obviously not read the article and are objecting to my paragraph on the influence of Alinsky method for personal biased reasons, imo. The person who put you on block told you that. You could have deleted just the references you didn't like, but the Washington Post reference and article supports all statements made in the paragraph all by itself. It was not quoting the Washington Post. It is a paragraph summarizing the article in the Washington post about Alinsky's influences on Barack Obama, a candidate for the USA. Keep it up. You in effect reported yourself the last time by your actions. I guess I will have to file a report about you and your other so called neutral buddies that you are trying to OWN the Alinsky article and hide the impact of Alinsky's ideology on modern, prominent politics and leaders in the country. Alinsky would be proud that he has two people who studied his ideology, tactics, and methods and became candidates for the Presidency of the USA. You apparently wish to hide it for you own personal reasons. You and your buddy WikiDemon, etc., who descended on the Saul Alinsky page are not neutral and objective editors. You are on a mission. It is obvious.--Mtngoat63 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The following are references that remain in the article, that the above user added. I will let them speak for themselves.

• http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/a26bacc210.jpg
• http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/32dfc303b6.jpg
• http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?6acfde0577.jpg
• http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm
• http://www.dickmeister.com/id73.html
• http://acorn.org/index.php?id=12447
• http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm

I believe the article should be reverted to a previous state. At the moment, cleaning up these items and restoring deleted material piecemeal strikes me as prohibitively difficult. --GoodDamon 16:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Here is a reference link to the differences between the old version and the one established by the single-purpose account. The old version had issues as well, but on balance seems to contain far fewer WP:RS-violating citations and external links.

And for the record, the Washington Post story referenced by Mtngoat63 above is not one of the sources being contested. I'm sure after the article is reverted, sources such as that one could be integrated. --GoodDamon 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would say go ahead and do a bold edit to clean up the article - either a revert, or simply rewrite the article. Ignore Mtngoat and let the chips fall where they do about that editor's behavior. The editor has been cautioned as much as one reasonably can about our content and behavior policies, and will either get them or not. Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait to do that until more people have commented. I want a consensus firmly established, first. I know, those references are obviously bad, but at this point I'd rather let the RfC play itself out and get some comment from uninvolved editors. --GoodDamon 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true and misleading comments. The paragraph about the influence of Alinky's teachings on Obama was there with very minor edits before you started deleting it. I did not even add the original paragraph. The Washington Post source was there too. I recently added the Reuters source and the Demo convention speech by Gerald Kellman. This has already been discussed at length since WikiDemon and GoodDamon started doing mass deletes of the entire paragraph. I have merely reinstated it with additional reliable references to support each sentence in the paragraph and made some minor edit rewordings. Material in this Alinsky article is not contentious. All statements are factual and reliably sourced.

Alinsky's teachings greatly influenced Obama in his early career as a community organizer. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html . In 1985 Gerald Kellman of the Developing Communities Project in South Chicago, hired Barack Obama to work as a community organizer in South Chicago. Sources: 1. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html 2. Speech by Gerald Kellman at Demo Convention published in Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS26669+26-Aug-2008+PRN20080826 . In a few years Obama became very skilled with the Alinsky method of community organizing and taught the Alinsky method to other community organizers. Fellow community organizer Madeline Talbott said Obama mastered the approach. Source: Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html . Obama later wrote a chapter in a book "After Alinsky" about his working as a community organizer. Source: Why Organize chapter Obama wrote for the After Alinsky book: http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm --Mtngoat63 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have contributed greatly to this article to make it a true representation of Alinksky and his influences. I have deleted right wing inflammatory postings as well as left. It is neutral. Material in this Alinsky article is not contentious. All material is factual and reliably sourced.--Mtngoat63 (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Contentious paragraph re-added without discussion

As I have no desire to be accused of edit-warring again, I will not revert the edit. However, I will explain what's wrong with it, with inline notation, and allow others to judge whether it should be removed or not.

I hope this makes more clear why there was such a response to the paragraph. It is a violation of WP:COPYVIO, WP:RS, WP:COATRACK, WP:OFFTOPIC, and if treated in the context of Barack Obama's biographical information, a violation of WP:BLP. That last one is important... The last thing Wikipedia needs is to be sued by Barack Obama for aiding in copyright violation and libel. --GoodDamon 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. The editor is rapidly heading for a ban or long-term block. You have gone out of your way to explain policy, try to be friendly, offer advice, follow process, etc. and it is 99.99% clear that is simply not going to work. You even filed an RfC, which I think is technically correct but probably a waste of time. The editor in question is even remotely close to acceptable behavior, and has no record at all of constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. At this point, process for the sake of process is a waste of time. It also gums up the constructive work - look at this talk page, it is full of useless discussion that will have to be archived lest anyone want to discuss real improvements to the article. If the editor reverts again, best to report to the appropriate noticeboard. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see. The editor hasn't reverted without discussion yet, and I'd prefer to assume it's because s/he is finally considering what I've written. --GoodDamon 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. I warned the editor, the editor has reverted again, and I have reported to AN/I here. Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it. I have tried to be friendly to this editor, but I think we're well and truly done here. Thank you for filing the incident report. --GoodDamon 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. You are at 2RR now so I suggest you not revert any further. There's just about zero chance that the editor will be allowed to continue disrupting so let's let the administrators figure it out now. Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true and misleading comments. The paragraph about the influence of Alinky's teachings on Obama was there with very minor edits before you started deleting it. I did not even add the original paragraph. The Washington Post source was there too. I recently added the Reuters source and the Demo convention speech by Gerald Kellman. This has already been discussed at length since WikiDemon and GoodDamon started doing mass deletes of the entire paragraph. I have merely reinstated it with additional reliable references to support each sentence in the paragraph and made some minor edit rewordings. Material in this Alinsky article is not contentious. All statements are factual and reliably sourced.

Alinsky's teachings greatly influenced Obama in his early career as a community organizer. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html . In 1985 Gerald Kellman of the Developing Communities Project in South Chicago, hired Barack Obama to work as a community organizer in South Chicago. Sources: 1. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html 2. Speech by Gerald Kellman at Demo Convention published in Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS26669+26-Aug-2008+PRN20080826 . In a few years Obama became very skilled with the Alinsky method of community organizing and taught the Alinsky method to other community organizers. Fellow community organizer Madeline Talbott said Obama mastered the approach. Source: Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html . Obama later wrote a chapter in a book "After Alinsky" about his working as a community organizer. Source: Why Organize chapter Obama wrote for the After Alinsky book: http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm --Mtngoat63 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All we have is a single opinion by a Washington Post journalist arguing that Alinsky was an influence on Obama. Slevin's piece is controversial and analysis not shared by others. That would be a minority opinion coverable only if there is sufficient WP:WEIGHT of sources agreeing with it, but the way this is worded is not supported by any of the sources. There is Nno support that Alinsky "greatly influenced Obama". None of those sources claim there is such a thing as the "Alinsky Method" or that Obama becames "skilled" at it. Talbott is not a reliable source. Obama's book is impertinent to these points, as is Kellman's speech. The whole thing is a WP:COATRACK, and the claim of Obama being an Alinsky-ite is likely not true at all. I will likely revert at some point unless a consensus develops to include. Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lord... I hadn't realized those jpegs were direct scans of copyrighted books. Deleted as WP:COPYVIO violations. --GoodDamon 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote is accurate as to why Alinsky wrote his book and is the first paragraph of his book and is allowed under fair use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not the text or the quote, it's the source: A scanned image of the book. More than a paragraph, and frankly illegal duplication of copyrighted material, without even going into the wholesale electronic duplication of Obama's text! You can't link to illegal material in Wikipedia. --GoodDamon 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't link to illegal material in Wikipedia. Where is that in Wikipedia policy? -- Noroton (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number that apply, but the biggies are WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO. --GoodDamon 23:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're right, it was against policy. -- Noroton (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All scanned images have been removed.

The best way to handle an offline source is to cite it without a link - it doesn't have to link to be a valid source. Books and other offline sources ought to be cited as specifically as possible (e.g. a page number and/or a quote in a footnote) so that people can actually verify them. If you can find an online version that isn't a copyvio you have two choices: (1) cite the online source if it is a good one even if it is not the very best, and/or (2) include the online link as a convenience link. The most common case where I see this come up is using video sources as citations.Wikidemon (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about the influence of Alinky's teachings on Obama was there with very minor edits before you started deleting it. I did not even add the original paragraph. The Washington Post source was there too. I recently added the Reuters source and the Demo convention speech by Gerald Kellman. This has already been discussed at length since WikiDemon and GoodDamon started doing mass deletes of the entire paragraph. I have merely reinstated it with additional reliable references to support each sentence in the paragraph and made some minor edit rewordings. Material in this Alinsky article is not contentious. All statements are factual and reliably sourced.

Alinsky's teachings greatly influenced Obama in his early career as a community organizer. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html . In 1985 Gerald Kellman of the Developing Communities Project in South Chicago, hired Barack Obama to work as a community organizer in South Chicago. Sources: 1. Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html 2. Speech by Gerald Kellman at Demo Convention published in Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS26669+26-Aug-2008+PRN20080826 . In a few years Obama became very skilled with the Alinsky method of community organizing and taught the Alinsky method to other community organizers. Fellow community organizer Madeline Talbott said Obama mastered the approach. Source: Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html . Obama later wrote a chapter in a book "After Alinsky" about his working as a community organizer. Source: Why Organize chapter Obama wrote for the After Alinsky book: http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm

I have contributed greatly to this article to make it a true representation of Alinksky and his influences. I have deleted right wing inflammatory postings as well as left. It is neutral. Material in this Alinsky article is not contentious. All material is factual and reliably sourced. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are two more authoritative sources about Alinsky and Obama. There are many more.

1. Lizza, Ryan, "The Agitator", The New Republic, March 19, 2007:

He [Obama] taught Alinsky's concepts and methods in workshops.

Alinsky had been dead for more than a decade when Obama arrived in Chicago, but his legacy was still very much alive. Kruglik, Kellman, and Galluzzo [the community organizers in whose organization Obama worked when he first came to Chicago] had all studied his teachings [...] "I regard myself as St. Paul who never met Jesus," Galluzzo told me of Alinsky, who died shortly after Galluzzo moved to Chicago on a pilgrimage to meet him in 1972. "I'm his best disciple."

His legacy is less ideological than methodological. Alinsky's contribution to community organizing was to create a set of rules, a clear-eyed and systemic approach that ordinary citizens can use to gain public power.

Obama was a fan of Alinsky's realistic streak. "The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people's self-interest was met," he told me, "and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in."

Obama so mastered the workshops on power that he later taught them himself.

But, although he was a first-class student of Alinsky's method, Obama also saw its limits. It appealed to his head but not his heart. For instance, Alinsky relished baiting politicians or low-level bureaucrats into public meetings where they would be humiliated. Obama found these "accountability sessions" unsettling, even cruel.

Where some of Alinsky's disciples speak of his work with religious fervor, Obama maintained some detachment during these years.

Even at Harvard, Obama kept a foot in the world of organizing. He spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by the IAF, a station of the cross for Alinsky acolytes. And, after he returned to Chicago in 1991, he served on the boards of both the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, which also gives grants to Alinsky-style groups, and continued to teach organizing workshops.

The church also helped Obama develop politically. It provided him with new insights about getting people to act, or agitating, that his organizing pals didn't always understand. "It's true that the notion of self-interest was critical," Obama told me. "But Alinsky understated the degree to which people's hopes and dreams and their ideals and their values were just as important in organizing as people's self-interest." He continued, "Sometimes the tendency in community organizing of the sort done by Alinsky was to downplay the power of words and of ideas when in fact ideas and words are pretty powerful. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.' Those are just words. 'I have a dream.' Just words. But they help move things. And I think it was partly that understanding that probably led me to try to do something similar in different arenas."

2. Mendell, David, Obama: From Promise to Power, 2007, p 67

Alinsky's life mission and his methodologies are both central to Obama's modern political message. As noted before, a recurring passage in many of Obama's speeches is his mission f 'giving voice to the voiceless and power to the powerless.'

This is pretty simple research. It should be something that editors can agree on. -- Noroton (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Noroton, I have redacted your accusations. If you are going to come here to contribute, particularly on topics related to Obama (where there is article probation), be civil and do not insult other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave the personal attacks out, Noroton. Now then, on to the cites you provided... All of those are perfectly good citations, at least on first glance, but I have no idea why you're bringing them up here. This is Saul Alinsky's biography page. Saul Alinsky died before Barack Obama ever heard of his writings or learned any of his methods. This article is not the place for a discussion of Barack Obama. This is the page for information about Saul Alinsky. Take it to Early life and career of Barack Obama. --GoodDamon 04:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Frantz Fanon#Influence. Seems like a pretty useful idea for a Wikipedia article. The passage on Clinton doesn't focus on her affect on Alinsky but on his affect on her. In fact, that whole section focuses on Alinsky's affects on others. Strangely enough, that just might be encyclopedically useful information for a reader. -- Noroton (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the article you're using as an example contains a single short paragraph about the subject's posthumous influence on other people, and many other, longer sections that are specifically about the article's subject. You have actually provided a prime example demonstrating what's wrong with the current version of this article, weighting and proportion. Right now, there is a dearth of information about Alinsky himself, and heavy focus on specifically calling out Barack Obama as a follower of his work (or at least there was until that paragraph was, again, removed). Look... Saul Alinsky was an interesting, notable guy. He deserves an article about himself, not about Barack Obama. --GoodDamon 06:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how pathetic. It's a short article that can be expanded, and the Obama material would be the third small paragraph in a three-paragraph section. Oh, boo hoo hoo about WP:FRIGGINWEIGHT. Who was serving the best interests of Wikipedia's readers and the encyclopedia overall? You two editors bullying the newbie or the newbie who was trying as best he or she knew how to add information for the reader? And the newbie, Mtngoat63, was adding other information to the article, some of it quite good. How can you fucking doubt that giving readers information on Obama having been influenced by the subject of this article is not worth a few lines of description as to how and how much? Are you so deeply concerned with POV pushing and so little concerned about the encyclopedia that you can't accept what is obviously NPOV, relevant material into this encyclopedia? Where is your shame? I'll say this for you, GoodDamon, you at least had the decency to try to make up with the newbie after roughing up that editor. -- Noroton (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Ummm... Asking the editor to read Wikipedia's guidelines was roughing up? Pleading with the editor not to reinsert contentious material until it could be discussed was roughing up? Warning the editor not to insult other editors was roughing up? Removing links to copyright-violating, nowhere-near-reliable sources was roughing up? Do I have to mince and walk on eggshells with every POV warrior who comes along? Boy, this is getting off-topic. If you want to discuss my behavior, feel free to write up an incident report. Heck, bring diffs; I'd like to see where I was "roughing up" anyone. --GoodDamon 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to mince and walk on eggshells with every POV warrior When they're newbies? Yeah. You do have to walk on egg shells. Practice mincing, too. I also notice that sourcing problems with the passage got replaced pretty damn quickly with other objections when I solved the sourcing problems. Interesting. -- Noroton (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) You said some interesting things, there. Let's start off with the "When they're newbies?" stuff. Mtngoat63's first edit, on September 5th, was to introduce a copyright violation as a citation (though no one caught it as such at the time), one which didn't support the text being inserted: [6]. This was removed with an appropriate and polite note: [7]. Mtngoat63's next action was to add a citation for The Obama Nation, which even you must agree is not a reliable source: [8]. Johnpseudo told Mtngoat63 as much in removing the ref: [9]. Over a span of four days, Mtngoat63 is almost the sole editor, introducing such tidbits as references to scanned pages of books and expansion on Alinsky's Lucifer dedication: [10] (Note that by this point, the editor has successfully added back in the first link, having utterly ignored the concerns of the other editors). This behavior goes on for a while, with general focus on introducing blogs as sources, emphasizing Alinsky's sympathies with Lucifer and Machiavelli, and expanding the Barack Obama section of the article, which I still find hilarious as Obama never met the man: [11]. Finally, on the 19th, Clubjuggle informed the editor about WP:COATRACK. Right around then, the personal attacks started. Up until people started specifically telling the editor which policies and guidelines the material s/he was removing violated, the editor simply undid the edits of other editors who removed the new material, either with no explanation, or with explanations like this: "Restore deleted material." Notably, the editor never seemed to wonder why the material was deleted. After being told of WP:COATRACK, the editor's summaries started looking like this: "Restore. Your reasons are pure opinion. Obama was influenced by Alinsky." Meanwhile, over on The Obama Nation, the editor began putting in text that was not supported by the reference: [12]. Things began spiraling out of control from there, with other editors pleading with Mtngoat63 to hash things out on the talk pages of both articles instead of edit-warring, and asking the editor to start reading Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They even provided all kinds of helpful links to same.

Mtngoat63 did not participate on a single talk page until September 21st, and immediately started editing abusively again as soon as a 3RR block expired. I have yet to see any evidence that the editor has read even a single policy or guideline. I think Mtngoat63 was "minced" around quite enough by then.

The other thing I note is that you say you solved the sourcing problems. You actually haven't made a single edit to this article. I removed the copyright violations. Other editors added new sources that at least don't directly violate the law, but not you. --GoodDamon 16:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking the last first, you're damn right I solved the sourcing problems -- about the influence on Obama. I mean, if the goal is to get well-sourced, relevant information to the readers and not just protect Obama from information some editors deem embarassing to their candidate. And I've got to laugh at the idea that Alinsky can't influence Obama unless Alinsky met him. Do you think Che and Malcolm X met Frantz Fanon? Rather than edit war on the page, I provided airtight sourcing, not that that's ever made a difference to some POV pushers, but most editors would be convinced that after ignorantly pronouncing that something is false it turns out to be true. Pseudo's sweet comment, That book is a hacket-job, not a reliable source) is just the kind of rough treatment you don't give to someone still learning. If you had been treated this badly in your first weeks as an editor, you might not be here today. When I say "mince", I mean "treat with a little extra courtesy rather than harsh language and repeated complaints at admin forums". Not too much to ask when you first start interacting with someone. It might have solved problems earlier and without as much difficulty and hard feelings. Since it generally does. Your description of Mtngoat63's behavior sounds like someone who does what new people do -- make sincere mistakes -- and someone who gets angry after being treated roughly. Sounds normal. Editors who are trying to give readers relevant information will eventually learn how to do it better. As for editors with more experience who are not trying to give readers relevant information, well, they should at least be trying to help the editors who are. Do you still have a problem with having an "Influence" section in the article? Do you think that leaving out the fact that Alinsky had an influence on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would improve the article? If you think the section should remain, do you think it should be changed? -- Noroton (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was starting to read to that until I got to the part "and not just protect Obama from information some editors deem embarassing to their candidate." If there's anything in there directed to improving the article, would someone mind restating that in a civil way? Anyway, while a few other editors seemed to be talking about whatever it was, I actually edited the section to improve it. As I noted below it had plenty of issues relating to format, tone, etc., even capitalization. I'm sure I missed a few. If there are some new sources, why not put them in?Wikidemon (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There isn't. It's the same old rehashed accusations, despite the fact -- which I have already made clear -- that I think the details of the influence Alinsky's teachings had on Obama actually belong in an Obama page, combined with an apparent disregard for the copious diffs I provided, so I'm no longer even sure what Noroton is talking about. In any event, I'll answer the one content-related point: Believe it or not, I do think there's room in this article for a paragraph -- or even two! -- of information about people who have claimed Alinsky as an influence on them. But until the rest of the article is expanded substantially, something an individual as notable as Saul Alinsky deserves, focusing in tremendous detail on people he influenced after he died is simply turning the article into a coatrack. Tell me something, Noroton: Why are you only ever interested in adding material about Obama? I'm beginning to wonder if you have a conflict-of-interest in this article. Aren't you at all interested in expanding details about Mr. Alinsky's personal life, or delving into his organizational methods, or expanding on his bibliography, or anything other than associating him with Obama? --GoodDamon 01:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I agree - and if you see my recent edits that's what I did. I organized the legacy section and gave Clinton and Obama two sentences each. I kept all the good stuff and mainly deleted fluff so the content is there, just a lot better organized. I also note that Noroton has left a courteous message for Mtngoat63.[13] Let's hope it works. Wikidemon (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article clean-up

As discussed, the article is a mess. There are a lot of problems, too many to detail - unencyclopedic tone, format, organization, lack of sources, POV, MOS issues, editorializing. It either needs to be thoroughly rewritten or rolled back to its condition from a few weeks ago just as a starting point. We can review the history to find the few constructive edits they were made and re-insert them. Either way it does not make much sense to do incremental changes here and there. Nor is there a whole lot of sense debating whether to include a whole paragraph about the effect on Clinton and one on Obama. If Alinsky is truly the "father" of community organizing he must have influenced a lot of imortant people, so we can't give a paragrap to each. The right way to do a legacy would be a few paragraphs of prose establishing the context and lineage by which he influences later people, thoughts, movements, organizaitons. A short of cited linked references plus a paragraph each on the two Democratic presidential primary contenders is not going to cut it. If anyone wants to improve the article the first step is to strip it down. Then we can worry about rebuilding it. Wikidemon (talk)

I don't think any attempt at article cleanup is possible until this whole debacle is resolved, but when the time comes, I have some ideas.

1. There needs to be some sort of bibliographic overview aside from choice quotes about Lucifer. At the very least, a complete list of his written works would be nice.
2. There should be a separate section covering community organizing, instead of having that mashed into the same section as his writings.
3. Alinsky has a lot of biographers. Some are neutral, some are negative, some are positive. If we could get a collection of each as sources, it would go a long way towards clearing up the article mess. Time to hit the libraries?
4. What are the details known about Alinsky's family life? I can't believe we don't even note whether he had any children or was ever married. I would imagine details like that would come before extensive discussions of who he influenced after he died.

Those are just the things off the top of my head. I'm sure there's lots more to add. --GoodDamon 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And added another... --GoodDamon 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And now I've found a new reliable source for more encyclopedic material: Slayton, Robert (1988). Back of the Yards: The Making of a Local Democracy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226761992. I'll see what I can incorporate from it. Looks like a good source of biographical material. --GoodDamon 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well a source, University of Chicago strikes me as a little bit of an odd choice, but rather indicative of what kind of debate I've stumbled over here. Its apparent that you (GoodDamon, Wikidemon) have employed several themes of argument against this paragraph which also strikes me as odd. Your concerns over the first editor were factual (and a warning to watch for anti-Obamaism?), then methodological, his edit warring, questionable sourcing, copyright infringement. But then you switch to concerns over relevance, (should be moved to Barack Obama,) then to concerns of uneven addition of information (why not information of his family first?.) This is much more indicative then what ever (if anything) you based your personal accusations against the next editor on.

But back to the topic; the paragraph is entitled "His Legacy" so straight off the bat the fact that Obama never met Alinsky is a non-issue. As a writer but more importantly (and omitted in this page)a theorist; Alinsky's methods ideology and general theory and how they have been interpreted form the basis of his legacy within this context. For example his 'legacy' does not and should not refer to his biological legacy and ensuing paragraphs over his children's progress. As with any theory, theorist, or new idea (the basis of his fame; the basis of this page); its impact or "legacy" should be directly centered around the progression and interpretation of his ideas, methods and teaching. For example a discussion on Realism and its 'legacy' would of course detail prominent interpretations by various prominent sources/practicioners. I would think the fact that his ideas are alive and well today embodied even within the most powerful man on the planet would warrant a degree of investigation when asking of his 'legacy'. But to merely end there would be injustice, to what degree are his ideas alive and believed? Your correct it doesn't warrant a paragraph , but as the detailing of his legacy within the most powerful empirical test case the world can offer , it deserves a lot more.

And before you reply with "well put it in the Obama page," please hear me out. As detailed above his 'legacy', given the nature of his encyclopedic fame, should focus on his ideas and theory. As such referencing Obama is merely that; referencing towards a primary consideration. Alinsky and his legacy (the only reason we are mentioning Obama) form the basis of the paragraph. Imagine if it was in the Obama bio page, we would have to adopt an Alinsky based analysis paragraph within a (primary root) Obama page, with a subsequent link to the Salinsky page before being able to make sense of the first page you are reading. I hope you can see your previous objection is illogical.

Furthermore to claim a lack of information in other areas is no reason to suspend progress in some; again I question your motives regarding Obama. If someone wishes to investigate Alinsky's family life then go ahead; it is not up to you to become a WikiCzar and appoint which sectors are addressed in which priority, any progress is progress. The second editor 'Noroton's sources are of a reliable nature.

Hope this page has a serious rethink by someone who is more familiar with how to write on a subject of this nature; and that he or she is of a less politicized nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.187.206 (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic

Rediculous. An attempt at censorship and a cover story for just another attempt by you to vandalize and eliminate any reference to the neutral, factual, well sourced, influence that Alinsky's teachings had on American politics and the presidential candidates this year, including presidential candidancy of Obama. The paragraph you and your gang of "editors" who have descended on this page in the last week is fair, neutral, and true. The sources are reliable, i.e., the Washington Post, NPR, and Reuters. In a year when two presidential candidate where influenced by Alinsky's teachings in their early education and careers it was very relevant to have that information in their as to the extent Alinsky's teaching have influence American politics. But you and Damon and now joined by Juggle seem hell bent on hiding any such truth about Obama being greatly influenced by Alinsky teachings when he worked as a community organizer in South Chicago. So now you want to rewrite the whole article just because you don't like one well written and sourced paragraph. You and your buddies are on a mission to hide information. It borders on censorship want you are doing. Go ahead and report me some more. An admin should look into what you and your buddies have been attempting to do to this article for the last week. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you care to propose some productive additions to the article -- book citations, details about Alinsky's time as a teacher (sourced reliably, of course), or more detail about his personal life and family -- feel free to add them to the article clean-up section. As is, I don't think attacks on other editors belong here at all, but I'm leaving yours for the moment. --GoodDamon 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I have added nationality per WP:MOSBIO to the lead and made past tense since he is deceased. Maybe somebody can craft a 2nd sentence about his historical significance to community organizing? Did he really found the movement? From the linked article it looks like he might have coined the phrase??Thanks in advance. --Tom 20:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks, --Tom 17:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is semcosh.org reliable?

I checked out the main semcosh.org page, and it's a classic example of poor design. That doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the reliability of their data, but it's often a hallmark. Does anyone know anything about them to indicate yea or nay on their site as a reliable source? --GoodDamon 01:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Well, this is a fine turn of events... The page is locked, now. So since there's no more risk of unsound edits going in, let's talk about what the article needs:

• Family information - I'm pretty sure Saul Alinsky was married three times, and had several children. It is astonishing that a biographical article could miss that kind of detail.
• Reliable sources - There are a few more now than there were, but there's still an over-reliance on Alinsky's own books instead of scholarly works about Alinsky.
• Separate bibliography - He wrote quite a few books. We should be able to list them.
• Education information - We can't just summarize the man's entire educational career with one line about the university he attended.
• A section on Back of the Yards - Preferably with a main article link. This section should definitely detail at least a few of the other major partners in the organization's creation.

Since we've got some time now, anyone want to start hashing out those details? --GoodDamon 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois

The Woods Charitable Fund (how one foundation came to support community organizing) sponsored a series of 9 articles about community organizing in Illinois that were published between January 1988 and July 1989 in the monthly public affairs magazine Illinois Issues.
One of the 9 articles in the series, "Why organize? Problems and promise in the inner city" by Barack Obama appeared in the August-September 1988 issue of Illinois Issues, pp. 40–42.
Obama's article "Why organize? Problems and promise in the inner city" did not mention Alinsky.
The 9 articles in the series were reprinted in a book edited by Illinois Issues associate editor Peg Knoepfle, After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois, published in June 1990 with a grant from the Woods Charitable Fund.
The book also included 30 pages of excerpts from a September 22, 1989 roundtable discussion with 8 of the 9 authors of the reprinted articles and several other participants, and 25 pages of excerpts from a July 15, 1989 interview of Tom Gaudette by Peg Knoepfle.

"Organizing in the 1990s. Excerpts from a Roundtable Discussion" (pp. 123-152) in: Knoepfle, Peg (ed.) (1990). After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. Springfield, Ill.: Sangamon State University ISBN 0-9620873-3-5
p. 124:

On September 22, 1989, the authors of the articles that make up most of this book got together in Chicago with representatives from Illinois Issues, Woods Charitable Fund, Inc., and other guests for an afternoon discussion.
John Kretzmann, trustee of the Wieboldt Foundation and director of the Urban Studies Program for the Associated Colleges of the Midwest served as moderator.
Authors taking part in the discussion were . . . Barack Obama, "Why Organize?"; . . .
Also participating were J. Michael Lennon, publisher of Illinois Issues; Sokoni Karanja, trustee of the Woods Charitable Fund, Inc. and executive director of Centers for New Horizons; Anne Hallett, director of the Wieboldt Foundation; Louis Delgado, assistant director of the special grants program at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Other guests from Woods were Lucia Woods Lindley, trustee and photographer, and program directors Ken Rolling and Daryl Woods. Also present was Peg Knoepfle, associate editor of Illinois Issues. Court reporter Wanda Monterrubio recorded the discussion.

pp. 132-133:

Obama: . . . . Part of the main function of my article, and the main function of this book and this conversation is to try to place organizing in a larger context, to figure out what kind of animal it is. I remember talking to Peter Martinez [a Chicago organizer, trained by Alinsky] awhile back. And he said something that I think to some extent I share a view with. He said, "I care about organizing. I don't care about community organizing." And I think what he meant by that is that organizing has a long tradition in this country. It didn't start with Alinsky. It didn't stop with Alinsky. What it has to do with is: How do you include the excluded in this country? And its history started with the founding fathers. It goes on to the abolitionists. It includes people who organize machine politics in Chicago, people who organize the black church in the South. How do you get people who are on the outside of the mainstream into the mainstream. And also, how do you get that mainstream to change through that process, to get rich and examine itself and remake itself? That's the important question. And I think what Saul Alinsky came up with was one cut on that.

Newross (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But it would appear that the connection between Alinsky and Obama is pretty tenuous, based on that. --GoodDamon 02:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alinsky's views on the SDS, Yippies, and Weathermen

Horwitt, Sanford D. (1989). Let them call me rebel: Saul Alinsky, his life and legacy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 0-394-57243-2, p. 524:

But Alinsky was not a hero or role model to all student activists. He had virtually no influence on the most important leaders of the New Left, early leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society, for example, like Tom Hayden, Todd Gitlin, Paul Booth, and Lee Webb.

Horwitt, Sanford D. (1989). Let them call me rebel: Saul Alinsky, his life and legacy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 0-394-57243-2, p. 526:

While Alinsky himself was a harsh critic of "our materialistic, sanitized, Madison Avenue-dominated society," he was adamant that effective organizing had to begin with "the world as it is"—and in the here and now, he told the young radicals sarcastically, what the poor want is a share of the so-called decadent, bourgeois, middle-class life that the SDS kids were so eager to reject.

Horwitt, Sanford D. (1989). Let them call me rebel: Saul Alinsky, his life and legacy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 0-394-57243-2, p. 528:

He was not amused, either, by the street-theater antics of Yippies Hoffman and Rubin, whose attempt at humor and ridicule reminded some of Alinsky himself. When a television interviewer asked Alinsky what the two Yippies would be doing ten years later, Alinsky shrugged and said, "They'll probably be in a vaudeville act someplace." And by 1970, after the newly notorious Weatherman faction of the SDS engaged in a series of violent street demonstrations and bombings, Alinsky was unsparing in his criticism, charging that violent acts were scaring and alienating the middle-class majority. "Any serious radical organization would have executed the Weatherman bombers as a matter of course. The worst form of social treason is to stir up a reaction that is more damaging to you than to your enemy. The Weathermen should be getting paid by the extreme right for the work they do."

Newross (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Maritain

Saul Alinsky was a close friend of Jacques Maritain for over three decades.

Doering, Bernard (ed.) (1994). The philosopher and the provocateur: the correspondence of Jacques Maritain and Saul Alinsky. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, ISBN 0-268-03802-3.

Horwitt, Sanford D. (1989). Let them call me rebel: Saul Alinsky, his life and legacy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 0-394-57243-2, pp. 165–166:

But if there was any one person who encouraged Alinsky to go beyond thinking about writing a book [Reveille for Radicals] and actually doing it, that person was most likely Jacques Maritain, whom Alinsky repaid by granting him the book's foreign rights.

Horwitt, Sanford D. (1989). Let them call me rebel: Saul Alinsky, his life and legacy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 0-394-57243-2, pp. 190–191:

Alinsky made a point of asking Val [Valentine Macy] to send him one of the photos, and after it arrived he wrote to them [Valentine and Harriet Macy] that he was going to put it in the most honored position he knew of—on his office wall between the pictures of the "most Rev. Bernard J. Sheil and the Hon. Jacques Maritain."

Newross (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Pope Paul VI

Saul Alinsky visited Milan, Italy in May 1958 and had three meetings with the archbishop of Milan, Giovanni Battista Montini.

Horwitt, Sanford D. (1989). Let them call me rebel: Saul Alinsky, his life and legacy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 0-394-57243-2, pp. 368–369:

Von Hoffman's escapade began when Alinsky departed for his first trip abroad, to Milan, to consult with Archbishop Montini—a trip arranged by Jacques Maritain, who thought that Alinsky could give Montini some organizational ideas for stopping the Italian Communist Party from making further inroads among Catholic workers.

Doering, Bernard (ed.) (1994). The philosopher and the provocateur: the correspondence of Jacques Maritain and Saul Alinsky. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 0-268-03802-3, p. 73:

When Montini was archbishop of Milan, Maritain suggested that he consult Saul Alinsky about organizational techniques in order to resist the domination of the labor unions by the Italian Communist Party.

Newross (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alinsky's influence on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development

Engel, Lawrence J. (December 1998). The influence of Saul Alinsky on the Campaign for Human Development. Theological Studies 59(4):636–661.
Newross (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

jevish ancestry

I have the same name, what is his grand. jevish ancestry? can you suply more info, plz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.125.73 (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow

The discussion page seems much longer and more thought-out than the article itself. And the article still lacks any real reference to what this guy believed.Ratherthanlater (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this really In pop culture?

I have the feeling that the following sentence/paragraph from the In pop culture section should be removed: Alinksy is also a major influence on hit United States President Barack Hussein Obama (formerly Barry Soetoro), who's past is a mystery to all who care and called one of the most secretive presidents ever. It's ungrammatical to start with, somewhat non-sensical, and was likely put in by some anti-Obama troll. Physcher (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

troll yes, bad grammar, yes....but it is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.241.223 (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Think Globally, Act Locally

As you can see elsewhere on Wikipedia, the phrase "Think Global, Act Local" was used by Patrick Geddes in his book "The Evolution of Cities" (1915), and the more recent use of "Think Globally, Act Locally" is generally associated with the ecology movement, often being attributed to the founder of Friends of the Earth, David Brower.

Alinsky was good with catchphrases, but I really doubt that this one of his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard Clark (talk • contribs) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a true "communist"

From his interview in 1972 with Playboy:

"PLAYBOY: Did you consider becoming a party member prior to the Nazi-Soviet Pact?

"ALINSKY: Not at any time. I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what judge Learned Hand described as "that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right." If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide." Playboy Interview

It seems logical to remove this label from his bio. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

09/2009 POV TAG

This article needs review. Citing BIAS and UNDUE WEIGHT. There's enough NPOV violation in the lead to warrant this tag. I hope to come together with editors and reach a consensus to put an end to the continued bias and undue weight applied on this page. 97.103.133.57 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh?? ya wanna tell us WHY you think it is so biased and NPOV?? How about an update on how your meeting with the editors went? what were your conclusions?24.92.217.175 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen such a snow job. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for allowing such a biased and one sided article. I guess this is why conservapedia.com is flourishing. Shame on you Wiki editors! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.25.197.109 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What's up with this sentence?

"Alinsky was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1909 to Russian Jewish immigrant parents Baruch and Stella Bagelmeister, the only surviving son of Benjamin Alinsky's second marriage to Sarah Tannenbaum Alinsky."

So who, precisely, were his parents? The Bagelmeisters or the Alinskys?<br. />--NBahn (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"As a result of his efforts and success at helping 'slum communities'"

Could someone please explain what "success" consisted of? Please be specific, e.g., number of people whose income was raised, by how much, how many delinquent fathers were reunited with their families, how many illigitimate births avoided, how many people were relocated out of the troubled areas, etc. Dmulliganx (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean "how many illegitimate births avoided or aborted" in the spirit of "jobs created or saved"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.199 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I love this [expletive] country

I'm going to change this to "goddamn," which is in the link. Wikipedia shouldn't censor quotes.69.94.192.147 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a Marxist

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky contrasts the ideology of "an organizer working in and for a free society" with the ideologies of Marxists and Christians:

Alinsky, Saul D. (1971). Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, pp. 10–11:

The Ideology of Change

This raises the question: what, if any, is my ideology? What kind of ideology, if any, can an organizer have who is working in and for a free society? The prerequisite for an ideology is possession of a basic truth. For example, a Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order or the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage—the political paradise of communism. The Christians also begin with their prime truth: the divinity of Christ and the tripartite nature of God. Out of these "prime truths" flow a step-by-step ideology.

An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth—truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist. He accepts the late Justice Learned Hand's statement that "the mark of a free man is that ever-gnawing inner uncertainty as to whether or not he is right." The consequence is that he is ever on the hunt for the causes of man's plight and the general propositions that help to make some sense out of man's irrational world. He must constantly examine life, including his own, to get some idea of what it is all about, and he must challenge and test his own findings. Irreverence, essential to questioning, is a requisite. Curiosity becomes compulsive. His most frequent word is "why?"

Alinsky never said he was a Marxist or a Christian—he was neither.

Adding a partial quote deliberately taken out-of-context to reverse its meaning and combining it with ignorant, unsubstantiated personal opinion—as done repeatedly by 71.74.95.254 (talk) / Nonrevisionis (talk)—is unacceptable, disruptive vandalism. Newross (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama Mention

How can Obama be mentioned here without a citation? Shouldn't that be deleted without a source? Otherwise, this looks political and amateurish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.12.167 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. There is a source immediately before the claim, a long Washington Post piece that describes Clinton's writing her thesis about Alinsky, and Obama being hired by Alinsky's organization and teaching the "Alinsky method". I've removed both, though. There was nothing in the source to say that Clinton was influenced by Alinsky, and in fact they say that she gave Alinsky mixed reviews. The sources do say that the claim that Clinton was influenced by Alinsky was a political tactic taken by her conservative detractors. Regarding Obama, it's hard to imagine he wasn't influenced given that he was teaching Alinsky's methods. However, the current sources don't exactly say he was influenced by Alinsky, so that would be our own analysis derived from the facts, something we're not supposed to do per WP:OR. If someone can find good sourcing for that, I think it should be added back. Alternately, we could say something more to the point, which is that Obama was hired by Alinsky's outfit, and taught the Alinsky method. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I inserted a citation/link to a story NPR did on Jan. 30, 2009 (what would have been Saul’s 100th birthday) entitled “Saul Alinsky, The Man Who Inspired Obama.” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100057050 For the story, NPR interviewed Sanford Horwitt, an Alinsky biographer. Horwitt many times has commented on – and never denied – Alinsky’s influence on Obama. In the NPR interview, Horwitt says: “I think that Obama is President of the United States because he was exposed to community organizing in Chicago and he followed in Saul Alinsky’s footsteps. … the manual , the organizer’s manual, for the Camp Obama trainings during (Obama’s presidential) campaign was very much based on the teachings of Saul Alinsky … .” There are numerous legit sources that tell of Alinsky's influence on Obama; the debate, if any, is a matter of manner or degree. So as long as the article has a "legacy" section, I think it's important to have something in it about Obama. Having influence on a President of the United States is a pretty big deal. Harry Yelreh (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Paine wasnt "left"

"Thomas Paine as being "one of the great American leaders of the nonsocialist left" Thomas Paine was an ardent libertarian and not left. -Studied Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.180 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just a point of view on your part. This article is about Saul Alinsky, but the quote in question shows Paine to be admired by leftists (which he is by some). If you want to challenge info about Paine, take it up on his article's talk page. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edit by Freedog007 that took out the sentence about Alinsky being compared with Thomas Paine. Per WP:BRD it should be discussed here, not just continually taken out just because you disagree. The cite is valid. The comment in the edit summary rather speciously asked for a "historical" reference. Not certain what they want. The article is from 1972, not just the past year or so as implied. Paine is admired on the left and the right and was a community organizer. I'm sorry, but "libertarians" do not have an exclusive claim on Paine's legacy. To try to edit some of the ideas that leftists admire in his writings out and limit him to just Common Sense is what is disingenuous. A lot of this should probably be taken up on Paine's talk page, not here. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

An excellent article

Though I consider Alinskiy to have been a deluded Trotskyite Millenarian (the concept of Permanent Revolution is clearly central to Alinsky's thinking) this is article is as concise a summary of his life and work as can be imagined for an encyclopedia article.

Conservatives disregard this analysis at their peril. PainMan (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disingenuous to pretend that Saul Alinksy was not a socialist

It seems to be a practice to debase the term socialist or communist when discussing Saul Alinsky. It is clear from his writing and speeches that Alinsky embraced many tenants of Marxism and certainly was at the least a classic Socialist. His entire reason d'etre was to create organisations bent upon using any non-violent means to redistribute the wealth of a nation in a way that he, and his followers deemed to be "fair."

That Alinksy was not a member of any organization is not proof of what his political views were and what his goals were.

The proof is that he clearly embraced a radical take over of the social structure of the United States along both Socialist and Communist beliefs.

There is nothing in the world wrong with accurately portraying Alinsky's political and social world view as it really was.

What is wrong, is trying to obscure these beliefs in what is supposed to be an article the goal of which is to truthfully portray who Alinsky was and what he was trying to achieve in his thoughts, writings, and speeches.

As a newby, I hope this is the correct place to make this point. If not, my most sincere apology to all

Blofeld2222 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So was Jesus a socialist too? He didn't say he was one either but all of his actions suggest it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "love thy neighbor" -- not, "Render 90 percent of your earnings to Caesar, and then trust Caesar to love everyone's neighbor in your stead." THAT would have made Christ a Socialist. 75.63.3.242 (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus said to give away all your possessions and live in poverty. That's not even communist. In your example, Jesus would say holding on to even 10% of your possessions was too much. The reason conservatives can't be real Christians is because Jesus was anti-materialistic, but conservative ideology is hyper-materialistic. Conservatives derive their ideology from Ayn Rand, and since LaVeyan Satanism was also derived from Ayn Rand's beliefs, conservatives and their beliefs really are a better fit with Satanism than Christianity. That's why conservatives are desperately trying to rewrite the Bible, and history. --66.251.237.73 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bull. That's a ridiculous reading of the scripture. He was making a point, not a commandment. And for you to go on to say "conservatives can't be real Christians" and to then tie them into Satanism shows just how fringe you really are, or how gullible you hope your audience is. -- 67.166.108.180 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Some people don't realize that Marx wasn't the sole idea behind all such thinking, long before the Communist manifesto there were ideas of wealth redistribution and equality. It would be like claiming Darwin was the sole person behind the study of Evolution. --74.232.40.167 (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is true, in fact, see wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals Saul was proud of his communism and suggested devices to advance the social conversion to communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.162.79 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in this link self-identifies Alinsky as a socialist. That should be our standard. It's synthesis to read about someone's politics, and decide they're a socialist or a capitalist, or whatever, when actually they're indifferent to that distinction, or exist outside of its context. Here's what you'd need to get the socialism (or not) of Alinsky in the article: (1) evidence confirming that this is debated. The Playboy link does this, but seems to plainly refute, almost to the point of making the issue non-controversial, that Alinsky was at least a Marxist, as he denies this, and the interview accepts this on-face. (2) Evidence from a credible source calling Alinsky a socialist, not just describing his politics, and then a Wikipedia editor appending the label "socialist" to it.69.94.192.147 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was the complete opposite of socialism. He preached free will, good will and respecting others and not coercion, theft and envy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.180 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why Jesus was clearly a socialist. Conservatives spent the last 30 years stealing, engaging in thuggery and illegal wars, and hypocritically claiming they've morally superior to everyone while demonstrating they're the most immoral batch of con artists, grifters, and hate mongers in human history. That's not even opinion, that's proven fact. --66.251.237.73 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Rostz (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I like how the guy who says it's "a proven fact" that conservatives are "the most immoral batch of con artists, grifters, and hate mongers in human history", who also says they can't be real Christians and that they really should be associated with Satanism, gets to have his comment stand, but the guy who DARES to point out (in a vulgarity-free way that simply mimics the other poster's language, turning the tables to make a perfectly valid point about his hateful ranting and trolling, I might add) that that's a disgusting attitude is the only who who is deemed to have violated any rule regarding civility. Thanks, Wikipedia. Your rules make EVER so much sense. Enforce the letter, not the spirit, eh? Shall you remove THIS comment, too? Is it an "insult" to tell someone they've got a disgusting attitude? Does it make a difference that I and most of my family are conservatives and thus he's obviously making PERSONAL ATTACKS of an incredibly vile nature on ME and them? -- 67.166.108.180 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing that socialists/marxists never want to admit it, but any conservative will... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.30.80 (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Geography and Politics

I skimmed the article looking for references to Mexico and Canada and couldn't find any. If there aren't, then the second paragraph of the intro should read "American," not "North American." Even though it's true, we don't call Confucius "Asian" or Darwin "European" (or even "British" for the most part).

Also, it should be noted as it was in a previous iteration of this article, that it was Playboy that described him as "one of the great American leaders of the nonsocialist left." (Geez, I wonder if Maxim could provide an even more penetrating analysis of this guy's politics). That there is even an argument on this talk page that he wasn't a hardcore socialist, much less a communist, shows that this is a Closely Guarded Article and that there's some real denial going on here. I love following the editing history of articles like this (see for instance White privilege or Partial-birth abortion) because it provides an insight into the minds of the ants who think that reality itself can be changed simply by unilaterally redefining concepts and words. Leftist beliefs aren't nearly as complex as leftists think they are, and attempting to parse them into categories that are only recognized by true believers provides an endless source of entertainment for me. Keep up the constructive and underappreciated work, comrades! --AntigrandiosË^Talk 23:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the insertion of "Democrat" into the Alinsky quote, because in the cited article from the Playboy interview Alinsky says "Most Southern politicians...." 65.183.139.78 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Alinsky as a socialist influence on the President.

Alinsky's prominence has been significantly raised recently due to a certain prominent candidate's repeated theme that he was a "socialist influence" on the current President. So it would be warranted to link to Bill Moyer's essay on "Saul Alinsky, Who?" (broadcast on PBS last night). Or even his essay on The Real Saul Alinsky". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Several people have been involved in edit-warring it appears today. Please stop and discuss here per WP:BRD. An IP moved the statement about the comparison to Thomas Paine down further in the article. It was reverted as vandalism probably because the IP didn't use an edit summary. The IP re-reverted with an edit summary and the edit-warring really began. It should have stopped there and been discussed here. From the talk page and the edit summaries, it appears that the comparison to Paine is somewhat controversial for some users. Let us know why it should be in the lead or why it should be lower in the article. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, one of the ones involved appears to be using sock puppets for edit-warring. So it probably was vandalism to begin with and this discussion is probably moot, for now, anyway. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, the IP 108.132.6.8 (talk) has chosen to simply revert instead of discussing on the talk page. Please! Anyone further don't revert his edit, for now. Leave the article as it is until consensus is determined. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll start the discussion: I have thought about it a while and really don't know whether it should go in the lead or not. It is very descriptive, yet it has been controversial for some who don't really understand how Thomas Paine's legacy has developed through time. Is it notable enough description to go in the lead? I'm leaning that way, but really, if it is included at all in the article, I'd be alright. I know that doesn't solve anything, but it's a start. Right now, I'm weakly leaning towards keeping it in the lead. JoannaSerah (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason to keep it out of the lead, nor has anyone presented one. The lead summarizes a person's life and his legacy and how he is viewed by others is a huge part of that. Gamaliel (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the original edit as vandalism because of the lack of an edit summary. Of course, I stayed out of the edit war. As to whether the sentence should stay in the lead or not, per WP:OPENPARA it should. Specifically, it speaks towards "why the person is significant." -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I say leave it in. To say that someone was a noted community organizer, or noted for a book, gives no measure of the man. To match him up against Paine, someone of widely known stature, gives the reader an immediate and meaningful measure. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Cyrrk removed the comparison to Paine from the lede, saying there was no consensus to put it there in the first place. I say that it was put there, and has remained for several years, without objection, so the default is to leave it there until there is consensus otherwise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm stunned as to why this even needs a discussion in the first place. Whether he could be considered a socialist or not is a debatable topic, and while I find a comparison with a man that's been dead for centuries (for longer than socialism has even existed as a concept) in the frame of "socialist vs. nonsocialist" questionable on its own, the fact that it even made it into the lead section into the first place I find to be reprehensible.--Cyrrk (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for joining us. (BTW, I've moved your comment here to keep the discussion in a regular progression.) Possibly you have heard of the WP:BRD policy? It basically means that (lacking other constraints) you are permitted to make a Bold change. And if anyone objects, they may Revert it. And then we Discuss it, to sort out what should be done (or not). But where you simply come back and repeat your "boldness", without engaging in discussion on the Talk page – that's edit warring, and not allowed. So now you understand that, fine. As to your particular astonishment: a discussion is needed because not everyone agrees with you. (It does happen.)

As to the discussion, you might wish to start a new section for that, so the forgoing comments don't confuse it. Ask if you need help. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

(Breaking out substantive discussion of recent edits from previous section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC))

Can you help me understand your objection to the sentence? You disagree with the word "nonsocialist"? -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reprehensible" is a pretty strong term. Why such a reaction to this sentence? Gamaliel (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Presumably we are all talking about the recent series of edits (of which this diff is representative), involving the placement of the sentence that Alinsky 'has been compared to Thomas Paine as being "one of the great American leaders of the nonsocialist left.' These changes have not been about the sentence itself so much as its placement, either in the lede, or in the Legacy section. It is disputed that he is a Great American, The counter weight is that Saul Alinsky learned the working of the Mafia with his study with Al Capone, features of this education became practice at his Industrial Areas Foundation where they infiltrate an organization, organize to force politicians to accept it's priorates and fund their pet projects; their site and associate sites boats these events.

That statement has been in the lede for several years, without objection, and its removal has been objected. Anyone feeling that it should be moved please explain why you think so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In my view, it's too questionable a comparison to be placed in the "lede", but still deserves a place in the article. It paints a sympathetic picture of a highly controversial figure in American history; hence, its placement slants the article.--Cyrrk (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's your view. Seeing how there has been no controversy about either the article or Alinsky himself until just the last few months, when a certain extremely partisan right-wing candidate for office starting flapping away on what a terrible socialist Alinsky was (and what a dangerous influence he is on the President), I can hardly doubt that is where you are coming from: a highly-partisan, non-neutral point of view. It seems to be true report that he has, indeed, been compared to Thomas Paine (even if you don't), and given such stature it would be slanting the article to diminish that. These seem to be plain facts, and so far you have not been persuasive otherwise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with J. Johnson (JJ)'s comments because I don't think he is assuming good faith. The arguments here should be evaluated on their merits and I find J. Johnson (JJ)'s comments partisan. That said, I don't find the argument that the placement of the Thomas Paine comparison in the ledge slants the article convincing. It is a comparison that has been made by a widely read publication and it is accurate to include this information. If there are other well sourced opinions of Saul Alinsky's legacy, I see no reason why these could not be included in the lede as well. But it is not proper to remove the comparison to Thomas Paine as it violates the guidelines for the lede paragraph. If you feel that there is a point of view being underrepresented, I suggest finding sources. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 00:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry as well to see that J. Johnson felt the need to not only project his own deeply-rooted partisanship and non-neutrality on others, but to even resort to baseless attacks on my character and intentions in the absence of anything substantive or constructive to say. How about this to offer an alternative perspective: "Saul Alinsky was a radical, but a Tory radical or a radical conservative: a man with a libertarian sensibility who supported all the little men fighting against any large structure, whether it was the government, a corporation, or organized labor."[14]?--Cyrrk (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the above correctly, it is Ronald Radosh's characterization of Nicholas von Hoffman's position in the book Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky. The big government aspect of Radosh's characterization seems reasonable given that von Hoffman wrote: "in actuality big government worried [Alinsky]". The corporation part seems reasonable as well, as the article states that Alinsky fought to get more black workers hired at a company. But I see no evidence for the claim that Alinsky fought against organized labor. This position would be strengthened by quotes from the primary source under discussion.-- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the basis of your allegation of "baseless attacks" (more than one?) where I said that "so far you have not been persuasive"? Or is it where I said you seem to be coming from "a highly-partisan, non-neutral point of view"? Note that I did not say that you are highly-partisan, only that the view you espouse seems to come from a highly-partisan source. None of this constitutes a personal attack; perhaps you should review WP:NPA#WHATIS. And note: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." Now I have previously assumed good faith on your part, attributing your several missteps to simple ignorance of accepted procedure, or perhaps over-exuberance. But with this personal attack you have made on me I think you need to demonstrate your good faith by retracting your unjustified and ill-advised statement. (I presume you know how to strike out text.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are assuming good faith because of the following sentence: "Seeing how there has been no controversy about either the article or Alinsky himself until just the last few months, when a certain extremely partisan right-wing candidate for office starting flapping away on what a terrible socialist Alinsky was (and what a dangerous influence he is on the President), I can hardly doubt that is where you are coming from: a highly-partisan, non-neutral point of view." The implication here is that because this content dispute happened around the same time as when a conservative politician brought up Alinsky, the content dispute itself must be partisan. Is your theory possible? Yes. But it is improper to immediately question another editor's underlying motives. I find the distinction you attempt to draw between calling someone highly-partisan and their point of view highly-partisan unconvincing. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not impugning that editor's motives, and even suggested that they might be as innocent as mere over-exuberance. Nor was I suggesting that he (she?) is highly partisan, only the likely source of these sentiments. (Perhaps you are also unclear on the difference between wearing clothes, and being clothes?) Even if that was a fair (albeit mistaken) interpretation of what I said, it does not amount to "baseless attacks" on Cyrrk's character, personal or otherwise; he has no basis for his attack. Both of you are overly quick to charge me with failing to assume good faith with you, while failing to grant me the same courtesy. I think you both need to take a longer look at WP:NPA#WHATIS and see what real personal attacks look like, and stop this whining. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

With respect, you're misrepresenting my position in a few places. First, I never claimed a personal attack took place, so WP:NPA#WHATIS is not relevant to my position as you imply. Second, I have not been overly quick to charge you; I made my claim a full four days into the discussion. My singular claim was a WP:AGF issue regarding the content disput. I was with you and you were on rock solid ground all the way up until "when a certain extremely partisan right-wing candidate for office starting flapping away". In my view, this did not add anything to the discussion and you were attempting to link that statement with the underlying motives of another editor. WP:CIVIL is of help here, specifically: "do not assume any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, and given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one." I didn't think this rule was followed here and that's why I brought it up. However, I will take you at your word here and assume you did not mean to use this statement in the way I suggested you did. It's still odd that the sentence made its way into this debate though; what you were you hoping to accomplish by bringing it up? The grounds for leaving the sentence in the lead had already been well established by you and others and I don't understand why you had to inject politics in the discussion. With respect to what Cyrrk has said about you, I do not stand by his position.-- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What I see as a personal attack would be Cyrrk's remark. My comment on that was over stretched in referring to you, and I apologise for that. I do take your remark on AGF as being hasty, in that you seemed to have judged me without asking for clarification. But possibly we are clear about that now, so no problem. I would reiterate that at no time have I assumed "intentional wrongdoing" by Cyrrk. For sure, his repeat edits were wrong (constituting edit-warring), but I think more properly attributed to lack of understanding or over-exuberance, and his cessation of that conduct is an adequate demonstration of good faith. (Though I think he still needs to retract some of his comments.)

As to the core issue, of whether I injected politics into the discussion: I say that the change Cyrrk wanted comes from, and reflects, a highly partisan political point of view. (Mind, I am not saying that he, or his motive, is highly partisan, only that the change he wanted is so tainted.) I raised that point because Cyrrk's specific complaint was that the existing arrangement painted "a sympathetic picture of a highly controversial figure". But the "highly controversial" characterization appears to be the doing of the single highly-partisan figure I've referred to, and both that and the objection about sympathy (or not) constitute a very non-neutral point of view. I don't believe pointing that out is either political or partisan. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I believe I understand your position now. I do see your point about being hasty and I will be sure to ask for clarification earlier in the discussion in the future. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 01:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)