text:
Mary Wollstonecraft

Mary Wollstonecraft (27 April 1759 – 10 September 1797) was an English social philosopher and pioneering advocate of women's rights. She married the anarchist philosopher William Godwin, but died soon after the birth of their daughter Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley).

Quotes

 * Nothing, I am sure, calls forth the faculties so much as the being obliged to struggle with the world; and this is not a woman's province in a married state. Her sphere of action is not large, and if she is not taught to look into her own heart, how trivial are her occupations and pursuits! What little arts engross and narrow her mind!
 * Thoughts on the Education of Daughters (1787), "Matrimony", p. 100

 * You know I am not born to tread in the beaten track — the peculiar bent of my nature pushes me on.
 * Letter to Everina Wollstonecraft (7 November 1787)

 * No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.
 * A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790)

 * Virtue can only flourish amongst equals.
 * A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790)

 * Good habits, imperceptibly fixed, are far preferable to the precepts of reason; but, as this task requires more judgment than generally falls to the lot of parents, substitutes must be sought for, and medicines given, when regimen would have answered the purpose much better. I believe those who examine their own minds, will readily agree with me, that reason, with difficulty, conquers settled habits, even when it is arrived at some degree of maturity: why then do we suffer children to be bound with fetters, which their half-formed faculties cannot break. In writing the following work, I aim at perspicuity and simplicity of style; and try to avoid those unmeaning compliments, which slip from the tongue, but have not the least connexion with the affections that should warm the heart, and animate the conduct. By this false politeness, sincerity is sacrificed, and truth violated; and thus artificial manners are necessarily taught. For true politeness is a polish, not a varnish; and should rather be acquired by observation than admonition.
 * Original Stories from Real Life; with Conversations Calculated to Regulate the Affections, and Form the Mind to Truth and Goodness (1788; 1791)

 * '''I am a strange compound of weakness and resolution! However, if I must suffer, I will endeavour to suffer in silence. There is certainly a great defect in my mind — my wayward heart creates its own misery — Why I am made thus I cannot tell; and, till I can form some idea of the whole of my existence, I must be content to weep and dance like a child — long for a toy, and be tired of it as soon as I get it.
 * Undated letter to Joseph Johnson (October? 1792), published in The Collected Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft (2004), edited by Janet Todd, p. 206.

 * About nine o'clock this morning the King passed by my window, moving silently along excepting now and then a few strokes on the drum, which rendered the stillness more awful through empty streets... I can scarcely tell you why, but an association of ideas made the tears flow insensibly from my eyes, when I saw Louis, sitting with more dignity than I expected from his character, in a hackney coach, going to meet death where so many of his race have triumphed... I have been alone ever since, and though my mind is calm, I cannot dismiss the lively images that have filled my imagination all the day. Nay, do not smile, but pity me; for once or twice, lifting my eyes from the paper, I have seen eyes glare through a glass door opposite my chair, and bloody hands shook at me... I wish I had even kept the cat with me! I want to see something alive; death, in so many frightful shapes, has taken hold of my fancy. I am going to bed, and for the first time in my life I cannot put out the candle.
 * Letter to Gilbert Imlay (26 December 1792), quoted in C. Kegan Paul, 'Memoir', Mary Wollstonecraft: Letters to Imlay, with Prefatory Memoir by C. Kegan Paul (1879), pp. xxxiv-xxxv

 * Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil.
 * The French Revolution, Bk. V, ch. 4 (1794)

 * The endeavor to keep alive any hoary establishment beyond its natural date is often pernicious and always useless.
 * The French Revolution, Bk. V, ch. 4 (1794)

 * I write in a hurry, because the little one, who has been sleeping a long time, begins to call for me. Poor thing! when I am sad, I lament that all my affections grow on me, till they become too strong for my peace, though they all afford me snatches of exquisite enjoyment.
 * Letter to Gilbert Imlay (19 August 1794)

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)

 * Independence I have long considered as the grand blessing of life, the basis of every virtue; and independence I will ever secure by contracting my wants, though I were to live on a barren heath.
 * Dedication

 * In the present state of society it appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and the answers will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various motives of action, they are formally contradicted either by the words or conduct of men.
 * Ch. 1, opening

 * The rights and duties of man thus simplified, it seems almost impertinent to attempt to illustrate truths that appear so incontrovertible: yet such deeply rooted prejudices have clouded reason, and such spurious qualities have assumed the name of virtues, that it is necessary to pursue the course of reason as it has been perplexed and involved in error, by various adventitious circumstances, comparing the simple axiom with casual deviations. Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root them out. The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its own principles; for a kind of intellectual cowardice prevails which makes many men shrink from the task, or only do it by halves. Yet the imperfect conclusions thus drawn, are frequently very plausible, because they are built on partial experience, on just, though narrow, views.
 * Ch. 1

 * The civilization of the bulk of the people of Europe, is very partial; nay, it may be made a question, whether they have acquired any virtues in exchange for innocence, equivalent to the misery produced by the vices that have been plastered over unsightly ignorance, and the freedom which has been bartered for splendid slavery. The desire of dazzling by riches, the most certain pre-eminence that man can obtain, the pleasure of commanding flattering sycophants, and many other complicated low calculations of doting self-love, have all contributed to overwhelm the mass of mankind, and make liberty a convenient handle for mock patriotism. For whilst rank and titles are held of the utmost importance, before which Genius "must hide its diminished head," it is, with a few exceptions, very unfortunate for a nation when a man of abilities, without rank or property, pushes himself forward to notice. Alas! what unheard of misery have thousands suffered to purchase a cardinal's hat for an intriguing obscure adventurer, who longed to be ranked with princes, or lord it over them by seizing the triple crown! Such, indeed, has been the wretchedness that has flowed from hereditary honours, riches, and monarchy, that men of lively sensibility have almost uttered blasphemy in order to justify the dispensations of providence. Man has been held out as independent of his power who made him, or as a lawless planet darting from its orbit to steal the celestial fire of reason; and the vengeance of heaven, lurking in the subtile flame, sufficiently punished his temerity, by introducing evil into the world.
 * Ch. 1

 * It is impossible for any man, when the most favourable circumstances concur, to acquire sufficient knowledge and strength of mind to discharge the duties of a king, entrusted with uncontrolled power; how then must they be violated when his very elevation is an insuperable bar to the attainment of either wisdom or virtue; when all the feelings of a man are stifled by flattery, and reflection shut out by pleasure! Surely it is madness to make the fate of thousands depend on the caprice of a weak fellow creature, whose very station sinks him NECESSARILY below the meanest of his subjects! But one power should not be thrown down to exalt another--for all power intoxicates weak man; and its abuse proves, that the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and happiness will reign in society.
 * Ch. 1

 * A standing army, for instance, is incompatible with freedom; because subordination and rigour are the very sinews of military discipline; and despotism is necessary to give vigour to enterprise that one will directs. A spirit inspired by romantic notions of honour, a kind of morality founded on the fashion of the age, can only be felt by a few officers, whilst the main body must be moved by command, like the waves of the sea; for the strong wind of authority pushes the crowd of subalterns forward, they scarcely know or care why, with headlong fury.
 * Ch. 1

 * It is of great importance to observe that the character of every man is, in some degree, formed by his profession. A man of sense may only have a cast of countenance that wears off as you trace his individuality, whist the weak, common man has scarcely ever any character, but what belongs to the body; at least, all his opinions have been so steeped in the vat consecrated by authority, that the faint spirit which the grape of his own vine yields, cannot be distinguished.
 * Ch. 1

 * Till women are more rationally educated, the progress in human virtue and improvement in knowledge must receive continual checks.
 * Ch. 3

 * Should it be proved that woman is naturally weaker than man, from whence does it follow that it is natural for her to labour to become still weaker than nature intended her to be? Arguments of this cast are an insult to common sense, and savour of passion. The divine right of husbands, like the divine right of kings, may, it is to be hoped, in this enlightened age, be contested without danger, and though conviction may not silence many boisterous disputants, yet, when any prevailing prejudice is attacked, the wise will consider, and leave the narrow-minded to rail with thoughtless vehemence at innovation.
 * Ch. 3

 * Taught from their infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison.
 * Ch. 3

 * If women be educated for dependence; that is, to act according to the will of another fallible being, and submit, right or wrong, to power, where are we to stop?
 * Ch. 3

 * How can a rational being be ennobled by anything that is not obtained by its own exertions?
 * Ch. 3

 * Ah! why do women condescend to receive a degree of attention and respect from strangers different from that reciprocation of civility which the dictates of humanity and the politeness of civilization authorize between man and man? And why do they not discover, when, "in the noon of beauty's power", that they are treated like queens only to be deluded by hollow respect. Confined, then, in cages like the feathered race, they have nothing to do but to plume themselves, and stalk with mock majesty from perch to perch.
 * Ch. 4

 * Women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, men are insultingly supporting their own superiority.
 * Ch. 4

 * It would be an endless task to trace the variety of meannesses, cares, and sorrows, into which women are plunged by the prevailing opinion that they were created rather to feel than reason, and that all the power they obtain, must be obtained by their charms and weakness.
 * Ch. 4

 * It is justice, not charity, that is wanting in the world.
 * Ch. 4
 * Men have superior strength of body; but were it not for mistaken notions of beauty, women would acquire sufficient to enable them to earn their own subsistence, the true definitions of independence; and to bear those bodily inconveniences and exertions that are requisite to strengthen the mind. Let us then, by being allowed to take the same exercise as boys, not only during infancy, but youth, arrive at perfection of body, that we may know how far the nation superiority of man extends . For what reason or virtue can be expected from a creature when the seed-time of life is neglected? None; did not the winds of heaven casually scatter many useful seeds in fallow ground.
 * Ch.5
 * A modest man is steady, an humble man timid, and a vain one presumptuous.
 * Ch. 7

 * Women becoming, consequently weaker, in mind and body, than they ought to be...have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection...either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast if off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.
 * Ch. 8

 * It is a melancholy truth; yet such is the blessed effect of civilization! the most respectable women are the most oppressed; and, unless they have understandings far superiour to the common run of understandings, taking in both sexes, they must, from being treated like contemptible beings, become contemptible.
 * Ch. 9

 * It is vain to expect virtue from women till they are in some degree independent of men; nay, it is vain to expect that strength of natural affection which would make them good wives and mothers. Whilst they are absolutely dependent on their husbands they will be cunning, mean, and selfish.
 * Ch. 9

 * The preposterous distinction of rank, which render civilization a curse, by dividing the world between voluptuous tyrants and cunning envious dependents, corrupt, almost equally, every class of people, because respectability is not attached to the discharge of the relative duties of life, but to the station, and when the duties are not fulfilled, the affections cannot gain sufficient strength to fortify the virtue of which they are the natural reward. Still there are some loop-holes out of which a man may creep, and dare to think and act for himself; but for a woman it is an herculean task, because she has difficulties peculiar to her sex to overcome, which require almost super-human powers.
 * Ch. 9

 * How many women thus waste life away the prey of discontent, who might have practised as physicians, regulated a farm, managed a shop, and stood erect, supported by their own industry, instead of hanging their heads surcharged with the dew of sensibility, that consumes the beauty to which it at first gave lustre.
 * Ch. 9

 * To be a good mother — a woman must have sense, and that independence of mind which few women possess who are taught to depend entirely on their husbands. Meek wives are, in general, foolish mothers; wanting their children to love them best, and take their part, in secret, against the father, who is held up as a scarecrow.
 * Ch. 10

 * Till society is very differently constituted, parents, I fear, will still insist on being obeyed, because they will be obeyed, and constantly endeavour to settle that power on a Divine right, which will not bear the investigation of reason.
 * Ch. 11

 * I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their [the sexes'] virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has only one eternal standard?  I must therefore, if I reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain that they must have the same simple direction as that there is a God.
 * (26)

Letters Written in Sweden (1796)

 * Letters Written during a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway and Denmark (1796)

 * It appears to me impossible that I should cease to exist, or that this active, restless spirit, equally alive to joy and sorrow, should only be organised dust — ready to fly abroad the moment the spring snaps, or the spark goes out which kept it together. Surely something resides in this heart that is not perishable, and life is more than a dream.

 * The more I see of the world, the more I am convinced that civilisation is a blessing not sufficiently estimated by those who have not traced its progress; for it not only refines our enjoyments, but produces a variety which enables us to retain the primitive delicacy of our sensations. Without the aid of the imagination all the pleasures of the senses must sink into grossness, unless continual novelty serve as a substitute for the imagination, which, being impossible, it was to this weariness, I suppose, that Solomon alluded when he declared that there was nothing new under the sun!
 * Letter 2

 * Friendship and domestic happiness are continually praised; yet how little is there of either in the world, because it requires more cultivation of mind to keep awake affection, even in our own hearts, than the common run of people suppose. Besides, few like to be seen as they really are; and a degree of simplicity, and of undisguised confidence, which, to uninterested observers, would almost border on weakness, is the charm, nay the essence of love or friendship, all the bewitching graces of childhood again appearing.
 * Letter 12

 * Affection requires a firmer foundation than sympathy, and few people have a principle of action sufficiently stable to produce rectitude of feeling; for in spite of all the arguments I have heard to justify deviations from duty, I am persuaded that even the most spontaneous sensations are more under the direction of principle than weak people are willing to allow.
 * Letter 17

 * Executions, far from being useful examples to the survivors, have, I am persuaded, a quite contrary effect, by hardening the heart they ought to terrify. Besides, the fear of an ignominious death, I believe, never deterred anyone from the commission of a crime, because in committing it the mind is roused to activity about present circumstances.
 * Letter 19

 * The same energy of character which renders a man a daring villain would have rendered him useful to society, had that society been well organized.
 * Letter 19

 * We reason deeply, when we forcibly feel.
 * Letter 19

 * It is the preservation of the species, not of individuals, which appears to be the design of Deity throughout the whole of nature.
 * Letter 22

 * Situation seems to be the mould in which men's characters are formed.
 * Letter 23

 * An ardent affection for the human race makes enthusiastic characters eager to produce alteration in laws and governments prematurely. To render them useful and permanent, they must be the growth of each particular soil, and the gradual fruit of the ripening understanding of the nation, matured by time, not forced by an unnatural fermentation.
 * Appendix

Quotes about Wollstonecraft

 * Alphabetized by author

 * I never saw that great woman, Mary Wollstonecraft, but I l have read her eloquent and unanswerable arguments in behalf of the liberty of womankind. I have met and known most of the progressive women who came after her...a long galaxy of great women...There have been others also just as true and devoted to the cause — I wish I could name every one — but with such women consecrating their lives, failure is impossible!
 * Susan B. Anthony speech February 15, 1906 — 38th Annual Convention, National American Woman Suffrage Association, Baltimore MD

 * During that period (around 1906) I had studied two more books, which helped to catapult me into socialist activities. One was the Vindication of the Rights of Women by Mary Wollstonecraft; the other was Women and Socialism by August Bebel.
 * Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, The Rebel Girl: An Autobiography, My First Life (1955)

 * If ever there was a book calculated to make a man in love with its author, this appears to me to be the book. She speaks of her sorrows, in a way that fills us with melancholy, and dissolves us in tenderness, at the same time that she displays a genius which commands all our admiration. Affliction had tempered her heart to a softness, almost more than human; and the gentleness of her spirit seems precisely to accord with all the romance of unbounded attachment.
 * William Godwin, on her book, Letters Written during a Short Residence in Sweden, Norway and Denmark (1796), in his own Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1798), p. 95

 * I firmly believe there does not exist her equal in the world. I know from experience we were formed to make each other happy. I have not the least expectation that I can now ever know happiness again.
 * William Godwin, in a letter to Thomas Holcroft, after his wife's death, as quoted in William Godwin : His Friends and Contemporaries (1876) by Charles Kegan Paul

 * Mary Wollstonecraft's reputation has suffered vicissitudes which, even in the history of genius, are unusual. Her name, during her lifetime, was lauded to the skies by one half of the reading public, and — in exactly proportional measure — vituperated by the other half. Then, for more than half a century, it was wholly forgotten, or remembered only as suggesting certain vague associations of a grotesque and not altogether decorous kind. Within the last forty years, the mists have been gradually lifting, and she stands revealed for what she was — a woman singularly original in thought and noble in character.
 * Camilla Jebb, in Mary Wollstonecraft (1913)

 * Even though Mary Wollstonecraft had little or no presence in history or literature curricula as recently as a generation ago, she has never exactly been a minor figure. Some, certainly, have wished her so. A dauntless advocate of political reform, Wollstonecraft was one of the first to vindicate the "rights of man," but in her own — brief — lifetime and ever since, she achieved notoriety principally for her championship of women's rights. And while some of this notoriety took the particular form of scandal of the sort that often attends women directly involved in public affairs, some of it she directly sought in her writing and in her conduct. Controversy always inspired Wollstonecraft, always sharpened her sense of purpose.
 * Claudia L. Johnson in The Cambridge Companion to Mary Wollstonecraft (2002), Introduction

 * women's marginalization in the process of History-making has set them back intellectually and has kept them for far longer than was necessary from developing a consciousness of their collectivity in sisterhood, not motherhood. The cruel repetitiousness by which individual women have struggled to a higher level of consciousness, repeating an effort made a number of times by other women in previous centuries, is not only a symbol of women's oppression but is its actual manifestation. Thus, even the most advanced feminist thinkers, up to and including those in the early 20th century, have been in dialogue with the "great men" before them and have been unable to verify, test and improve their ideas by being in dialogue with the women thinkers before them. Mary Wollstonecraft argued with Burke and Rousseau, when arguing with Makin, Astell and Margaret Fell might have sharpened her thought and radicalized her...Simone de Beauvoir, in a passionate dialogue with Marx, Freud, Sartre and Camus, could go as far with a feminist critique of patriarchal values and institutions as it was possible to go when the thinker was male-centered. Had she truly engaged with Mary Wollstonecraft's thought, the works of Mary Astell, the Quaker feminists of the early 19th century, the mystical revisioners among the black spiritualists and the feminism of Anna Cooper, her analysis might have become woman-centered and therefore capable of projecting alternatives to the basic mental constructs of patriarchal thought. Her erroneous assertion that, "They [women] have no past, no history, no religion of their own," was not just an oversight and a flaw, but a manifestation of the basic limitations which have for millennia limited the power and effectiveness of women's thought.
 * Gerda Lerner The Creation of Feminist Consciousness (1993)

 * Deriving their analytic framework from the work of an earlier generation of feminists, particularly such singular rebels as Mary Wollstonecraft and Sarah Grimké, the anarchist women insisted that the humanity of women was all the justification their cause required.
 * Margaret S Marsh, Anarchist Women, 1870-1920 (1981)

 * Young women of America, I want you to make yourselves acquainted with the history of the Woman’s Rights movement, from the days of Mary Wollstonecraft. All honor to Mary Wollstoncraft. Her name was cast out as evil, even as that of Jesus was cast out as evil, and as those of the apostles were cast out as evil; but her name shall yet go forth and stand as the pioneer of this movement. I want you to note the progress of this cause, and know now that Woman’s redemption is a hand, yea, even at the doors.
 * Lucretia Mott, "The Mind and Powers of Woman" (May 10, 1860)

 * I think I've brought figures of resistance into my poetry for quite a while-going back to the voice of Mary Wollstonecraft in "Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law" (1960). History has always felt to me an immense resource for art, and poetry as a place where history can be kept alive-not grandmaster narratives, but otherwise forgotten or erased people and actions.
 * Adrienne Rich Arts of the Possible (2001)

 * Mary Wollstonecraft conceded the central point of the genteel theory with these words: "That woman is naturally weak, or degraded by a concurrence of circumstances, is, I think, clear." In effect she took over Rousseau's thesis, and phrased it in her fashion: Woman is everywhere in chains but I propose to show her the road to freedom. In Wollstonecraft's view, the idea that woman was formed to please man and could govern him by the use of sex charms "is the philosophy of lasciviousness," an offense against virtue, reason, and respectability - against everything that gives dignity and value to human life...Scattered through Vindication of the Rights of Woman were innumerable opinions equally preposterous. Yet the boldness of the book, like the experiments in living which the author undertook, attracted attention, friendly and adverse, to this ardent advocate of human "rights." Mary Wollstonecraft's unrepressed thrust at conventions was issued in an American edition at Boston the same year of its publication in England. Her name entered the stream of consciousness in which other names of social rebels floated near the surface or deeper in memory. To this day she is a near-saint of countless feminists, most of whom have probably never read a line of her pamphlet on women critically at least.
 * Mary Ritter Beard, Woman as force in history (1946)

 * According to the liberal tradition outlined by Mary Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), education is the key to social improvement, allowing a woman to develop her rational and moral capacities.
 * Sally Rowena Munt, in Murder by the Book?: Feminism and the Crime Novel (1994), p. 33

 * Wollstonecraft was an Enlightenment philosopher who argued for the rule of reason and the education of women, and against monarchy and slavery. Her "radical" views earned her the epithet "a hyena in petticoats," most likely from an ancestor of Bill O'Reilly.
 * Jen Sorensen Slowpoke: One Nation, Oh My God! (2008)

 * Women have crucified the Mary Wollstonecrafts, the Fanny Wrights, and the George Sands of all ages. Men mock us with the fact and say we are ever cruel to each other... If this present woman must be crucified, let men drive the spikes.
 * Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Letter to Lucretia Mott (1872-04-01).

 * She strove to reconcile integrity and sexual desire, the duties and needs of women, motherhood and intellectual life, domesticity and fame.
 * Janet Todd in Mary Wollstonecraft : A Revolutionary Life (2000)

 * According to Wollstonecraft, "Independence is the grand blessing of life"… Wollstonecraft here refers to both economic independence and independent opinion. Education is the key to both.
 * Karen Warren and Duane L. Cady, in Bringing Peace Home Feminism, Violence, and Nature (1996), p. 120

 * Ideas of female equality were in the air during and after the Revolution. Tom Paine spoke out for the equal rights of women. And the pioneering book of Mary Wollstonecraft in England, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, was reprinted in the United States shortly after the Revolutionary War. Wollstonecraft was responding to the English conservative and opponent of the French Revolution, Edmund Burke, who had written in his Reflections on the Revolution in France that "a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order." She wrote: "I wish to persuade women to endeavor to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, with delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonymous epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are only the objects of pity and that kind of love... will soon become objects of contempt....I wish to show that the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a character as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex."
 * Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States

title: Mary Wollstonecraft


text:
User talk:JarlaxleArtemis

Thank you for many good thinkers' quotes, including Mary Wollstonecraft! --Aphaia 21:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jarlaxle thank you for your welcoming to Guanaco ;-) Now we have a . Your improvement will be very appreciated. --Aphaia 07:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms
If these R. A. Salvatore books are part of the setting of the Forgotten Realms game, why isn't their any mention of Salvatore in the Wikipedia article? (This is my not-so-subtle way of suggesting that "someone" correct what appears to be a glaring omission in that article. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Jeff, as an avid Salvatore fan, I assure you these are part of the FR setting, at least in that they're official TSR books set in that setting, and sell widely. However, I agree the page should probably be moved to an R.A. Salvatore page, and then I could contribute from RAS's excellent Tarzan book I'm reading :) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome greetings!
I mean that! --pavlosh 19:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars
You seem to have confused two different scenes from two different Episodes. In Episode V, just before Han is lowered to the carbon-freezing chamber, Leia says: "I love you"; and Han replies: "I know". In Episode VI, in front of the Endor bunker, after Leia gets shot, the group is surrounded by Stormtroopers, and when Leia shows her gun to Han, he says: "I love you, and she answers: "I know". The first response was improvised, while the second one just followed the improvised one. Copperchair 04:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, thanks. You're right; I did confuse them. —Jeremy Hanson  23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism
I don't agree with the quote either, but Nietzsche is a guilty pleasure. I'm on en.wikipedia at w:User:Thames.

Nothing will save!
I'm curious -- what is this page? I was prepared to mark it as VFD, or even to speedy delete it, but with your past contirbutions, I thought maybe you had something in mind here and I would give it the benefit of the doubt. Do you? Or is this just a mistake? UDScott 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your user image
I'm afraid that your user image, Image:Jarlaxle2.JPG, has been nominated for deletion. You may not know this, but last year, to avoid growing Wikimedia concerns about policing fair use images, we adopted a practice of deleting non-free-use images, disabling our upload feature, and sending editors to Wikimedia Commons to upload images, where they have strict free-use requirements. Therefore, this image will almost certainly be deleted in a week. You might want to see if you can upload a free-use image on Commons to take its place. Thank you for your attention. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Grawp
You obvously are Grawp on Wikipedia. Keep up the good werk! --86.177.145.193 11:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called JarlaxleArtemis. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name JarlaxleArtemis~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

https://discord.gg/nsYv93
https://discord.gg/nsYv93

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:JarlaxleArtemis


text:
User talk:4.43.173.11

Veronica Mars
Welcome to Wikiquote! I hope that you find this repository of quotes useful. I also hope that you can help us add to it by contributing quotes on topics of interest to you. To that end, I'd like to ask if you could add some actual quotes to the Veronica Mars page that you created. I realize that you provided a couple of external links for the show, but it would be much more helpful if you could add some relevant quotes. Otherwise, the page risks being deleted for lack of content.

The strength of the Wiki system is that anyone can add or edit material, and the success of Wikiquote depends on contributions from its readers. If you have any questions or would like advice about editing, feel free to contact me using the (talk) link in my signature below. Thank you for participating! — Jeff Q (talk) 21:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:4.43.173.11


text: Template:Commons

title: Template:Commons


text:
Eric Cantona

Eric Cantona (born May 24, 1966) is a French former footballer of the 1990s. He ended his professional footballing career at Manchester United where he won four F.A. Premiership titles in five years, including two FA Cup "doubles". Cantona is often regarded as having played a major "talismanic" role in the revival of Manchester United as a footballing powerhouse, and was voted their player of the century in 2000.

By Eric Cantona

 * When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea.
 * Only comment to journalists waiting for him following the "Kung-Fu Kick Incident" of January 1995

 * After his first training session in heaven, George Best, from his favourite right wing, turned the head of God who was filling in at left-back. I would love him to save me a place in his team - George Best that is, not God.

 * I feel close to the rebelliousness and vigour of the youth here. Perhaps time will separate us, but nobody can deny that here, behind the windows of Manchester, there is an insane love of football, of celebration and of music.

 * Because arguing with racist people is like playing chess with a pigeon: It doesn't matter how good you are! The pigeon is going to knock all the pieces down and shit on the board and parade around like he's won. (the "Playing chess with pigeons..." statement is not something that originated with Eric Cantona but was first created by an Amazon product reviewer and is often repeated by others, per Snopes.)

 * As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods, they kill us for their sport. Soon the science will not only be able to slow down the ageing of the cells, soon the science will fix the cells to the state. And so we will become eternal. Only accidents, crimes, wars, will still kill us but unfortunately, crimes, wars, will multiply. I love football. Thank you. (The first sentence is itself a quotation from King Lear)
 * Acceptance speech for the 2019 UEFA President's Award

 * "The three million people in the street, they go to the bank, withdraw their money, and the banks collapse...That's a real threat, there's a real revolution," he said in the video on the web. At the time, French workers were taking to the streets to protests France's pensions reform.

About Eric Cantona

 * "He was the only player I saw who the manager never had a go at. We all went to a film premiere and were told to wear black ties. Eric turned up in a cream lemon suit with Nike trainers. The manager told him that he looked fantastic!"
 * Andy Cole, former Manchester United teammate of Cantona.

title: Eric Cantona


text:
User:Securiger~enwikiquote

I mainly hang out at Wikipedia

title: User:Securiger~enwikiquote


text:
Wikiquote talk:Category schemes/Archives/2005

Vote for deletion notice
— Jeff Q (talk) 04:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Initial questions
Currently our Category scheme has three top levels: Wikiquote for maintenance material, Main page which collects those categories with links on the Main page and Fundamental which collects other "high level" categories. I would suggest that we reorganize this to one top-level category: Fundamental. Then Wikiquote would be a subcategory as well as Main page. I note that Wikipedia treats Fundamental as the single top level category and that category:Wikipedia is a subcategory of it.

I also sugggest that each category in Main page by added to Category:Fundamental. This would collect all "high level" categories in one place.

A third question I have concerns category Occupations. Currently all occupation are top level subcategories of Category:Occupations so we have Occupations with subcategories Authors, Screenwriters, Poets, Journalists, and Critics. Category:Authors is already become very large for obvious reasons. I wonder whether it would be better to make the other categories subcategories of Category:Authors and perhaps add a couple more for novelists, playwrights, etc.

I would also suggest that Category:Unknown be renamed category:Unknown occupation as that is its current purpose but that is not clear from the title. This should probably be cross-listed in the maintenaince categories somewhere. Rmhermen 14:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Also I notice we have duplicates: Businesspeople and Business leaders. I would suggest using only Business leaders to match Religious leaders and Political leaders. I would like to see Military commanders redirected to the more general and matching Military leaders as well.
 * Also Computer Scientists should be renamed Computer scientists to match other category's capitalization. On Wikipedia these request would be put on the Categories for deletion page but I don't think we need anything elaborate here. Rmhermen 14:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Also Category:Politicians may or may not be a duplicate of Category:Political leaders. Do we want two categories - one for actually leaders like presidents, prime ministers and one for lower level politicians? How would we indicate this? Rmhermen 14:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Rmhermen, I think you ask too many good questions to put into an loose, unheaded list. I'm going to split your points into separate topics below. — Jeff Q (talk) 08:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Fundamental" and "Main page"
The current scheme makes these two categories are distinct (along with a third, "Wikiquote"). Rmhermen suggests above that "Main page" be a subcategory of "Fundamental", in order to make Fundamental the overarching category. I don't agree, because we already have an overarching category — Category:Categories. Fundamental, to me, is more oriented toward top-level collections of knowledge, and "Main page" isn't a body of knowledge, but a practical view of Wikiquote's primary collections of quotes. It's rather like the content vs. presentation debate in programming. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rmhermen also suggests that all of Main page's subcategories also be included in Fundamental. I think that some, like perhaps Occupations, should be in Fundamental. I also think People should be a Category (capital C) under "Fundamental" and "Main page", as it's the only old category (lowercase c) listed in Selected Pages, besides the confusing "Categories" category, that isn't a Category. (Jeez, we need different words!) Literary works, Films, TV shows, and Electronic games all strike me as fundamentally "Entertainment" or "Works" (to contrast with "People" and "Themes"), which is how I'd group them under Fundamental. But these entertainment Categories still make sense in the Main page bar (and therefore in Category:Main page), again because they are how we've organized our view of Wikiquote. I see no compelling reason either to include in or exclude from Fundamental everything in Main page. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Wikiquote and Wikipedia appear to be different, in that WP doesn't seem to have a "Main page" category. It just slaps links to its greatest-interest Categories, which may or may not be in Fundamental, on the its Main page bar. WP and WQ both use their names as categories to group administrative topics, separating those pages from the article namespace. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Occupation subcategories
Rmhermen wonders if we shouldn't subcategorize some occupations, like Authors, that are growing fairly large. I have no problem with appropriate subcategories. But I don't see any real problem with having large categories, either. Another concern with subcategorization is when someone belongs to more than one subcategory; e.g., Shakespeare (poet, playwright), Douglas Adams (science fiction author, comedic author). Of course, that's not really a problem, either. The main concern I've seen about multiple categories in Wikidom so far is that you never want to have an article in both category A and category A's subcategory or supercategory, which is considered wasteful. (E.g., if Shakespeare is in Poets and Playwrights, which are subcategories of Authors, he shouldn't also be in Authors.) — Jeff Q (talk) 10:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * In retrospect, I think I missed a significant annoyance of large categories — having to check multiple pages for a long list like Authors. Since we're up to 318 authors, and growing daily, I'm definitely leaning toward subcategorization now. One concern is how to do it. Using Authors as an example, it might make sense to have genre categories under Authors by genre under Authors, similar to the Literature by genre under Literary works. A subcategorization by format (novelists, playwrights, essayists, etc.) would also make sense. (I'm not sure what to call this; "format" seems kind of vague to me.) Both systems can be used, just as Literary works has both "by genre" and "by author". I'm going to start changing some author category tags, and I invite people to look at the results and comment. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leaders
I agree with Rmhermen that (A) "Businesspeople" should be merged with "Business leaders" and (B) "Military commanders" should be moved to "Military leaders" to maintain the established pattern. I would suggest that "Politicians" and "Political leaders" are essentially the same, as politicians are leaders (of polities) by definition (whether they actually lead or not), and it would be hard to draw a line between tiers of politicians. (E.g., if we draw it at the top political office, what about countries like China that don't have a formal top? Do we just pick the effective leader, whatever the office? What about military leaders that are de facto heads of state, without a political title?) — Jeff Q (talk) 10:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I also second the suggestion about Category:Politicians and Category:Political leaders. Let's deprecate the latter and move its contents to former. Then maybe subcategorize Category:Politicians since it has grown quite big. We could have "Politicians by country" -> "American politicians", "Politicians by office" -> "Prime ministers" etc. jni 10:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I second jni's motion. I believe that, while political leaders are by their nature politicians, politicians are not always political leaders. Just like a circle is a shape, but a shape is not a circle. Therefore, we should subcategorize political leaders into politicians. This will not only be helpful, but extremely simple to manage. -- Benn M 01:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Businesspeople merged into Category:Business leaders. Rmhermen 15:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unknown category
I don't think we need to rename "Unknown" into "Unknown occupations". I think this kind of "Unknown" is unnecessary. It assumes that we must categorize everyone by occupation. But there are other aspects that may be considered important. We already have nationalities (e.g., Germans, Indians) and sex (e.g., Men, although I expect we'll add Women, too). Any such category will have an implied "Unknown" until someone fills it in. Technically, there could also be an "Uncategorized", for those whose subcategory of an aspect doesn't yet exist (e.g., Italians, Hermaphrodites). I suggest this drive to complete categorization is not essential. Anyone who doesn't appear in an Occupation or a Nationality will just wait until someone identifies it. (We can also avoid potential political correctness fights over occupations with controversial titles simply by not bothering to include them unless and until people feel compelled to add them. ☺) Basically, we don't really need to flesh out any category branch, just provide some patterns to follow. We should remember a basic Wiki principle: nothing's ever finished. If we can establish solid patterns, we're doing extremely well indeed. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I will note that I didn't create Category:Unknown but I can see it serving a purpose as a Maintenance category showing us where work needs to be done. Rmhermen 16:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * But don't [ Special:Uncategorized pages] and [ Special:Uncategorized categories] do this job much more effectively? Anything that needs a category is apparently automatically listed here, not just people articles that someone has taken the trouble to tag as "Unknown". (Don't let my bold statements above fool you — I'm still feeling my way through the Category system. I could easily be missing something.) — Jeff Q (talk) 19:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization conventions
I support Rmhermen's suggestion to rename categories to match typical Wiki capitalization (i.e., first word capitalized, no others capitalized except proper nouns and all-cap acronyms). The vast majority of categories thus far conform to this pattern, so there are only a few to fix anyway. Once we have a categorization help page, we can make this clear. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Besides "Computer Scientists", the only other one I noticed was "Category:Nobel Prize Winners" Rmhermen 16:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * There's also "Category:Boyd Rice and Friends Albums", which should be "Category:Boyd Rice and Friends albums". (My, I'm picky, aren't I?) — Jeff Q (talk) 19:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just fixed the easy "Boyd Rice" category. I'll be working on the considerably more populated two shortly. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Finished moving 44 articles to Category:Computer scientists and Category:Nobel Prize winners. Tagged now-empty categories for speedy delete. (I think I should have moved the categories themselves before changing the articles' categories.) — Jeff Q (talk) 08:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nationalities
For once, I have an issue that the very thoughtful Rmhermen hasn't yet raised! ☺ We have reason to create a Nationalities category. Right now, we have exactly three: "Germans", "Indians", and "People from Canada" (which I was planning to move to "Canadians"). This sounded like an excellent pattern — until I thought about the British. (English? Britishers?) The Welsh. (Welshmen? Welshpeople?) The Irish. (Of the those island folk, only the Scots cooperate with our plural pattern.) And there are many more besides these. Can we establish a reasonable pattern here? (That "People from" is beginning to look reasonable.) I seem to recall a page on Wikipedia that listed the various forms of national descriptive names (e.g., country adjectival, people, language, etc.). If no one knows that page offhand, I'll see if I can track it down. But I'm looking for suggestions about this particular pattern. — Jeff Q (talk) 10:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is, I believe moving all categories to the "X of country" format. I support a Category:Nationalities. What supercategory does it go in -- People?, Fundamental? Rmhermen 15:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(The following separate thread along the same vein has been moved from WQ:VP)

As Wikiquote, like all the Wikimedia projects, are meant to be sources of information, references for those who are stumped by their own knowledge, I began categorizing entries by their nationality and geography. I have since been asked to stop and run this by the village pump. I shall here make my case for beginning to sort person-entries by geography. I have, in the past, looked around for quotes not necessarily based on topic or source, or even time period, but by geography. Very few sources sort themselves out this way. I thought with the beautiful thing called wiki we could do it relatively painlessly and simply. What has thus far been built is a multi-branched tree. On the entry's page goes the country of origin (in the case of some large territories or nations, regions/provinces/states are wise, to narrow things down). Then, the country of origin leads to the continent, which leads to a category People by nationality. Which comes down directly from People. It's a short tree. And one entry is not necessarily limited to one place. For example, Ambrose Bierce is often identified with Illinois and Ohio as he is with California. T. S. Eliot was an Englishman who later emigrated to America. This information can be recorded by sorting these people by their places of origin as well as their later residences. -- Benn M 09:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your proposal, I hope other editors consider your ideas about. To make clear, though personally I am doubious if "categories by nationality" is really useful and can be appropriate our POV policy, but I appreciate both all good improvement and attempt for increasing usability. The reasons I am not for "categories by nationality" are the below:
 * "Nationality" is a modern notion and can hardly apply to ealier than medieval people, sometimes premodern. Example: Antherm of Canterbery was born in Italian but his main activitie was in English - and he wrote nor in Italian nor in English but in Latin. How should we categorize such person?
 * There are many disputes on attribution (remember Gdansk vote!) in some areas - nationality is not a geographical concept, but politic. And it is hard to be neutralized. A Japan-born person with US nationalities is considered Amercian by US citizens but Japanese tend to think he is still Japanese "because he is born in Japan and Japnese in ethnics". For NPOV categorization, we are better to avoid confusion between nationalities, ethnics and geographical notions (where he or she was born). [This problem I have felt already in our brief description on each article].
 * Relevant proposal: how about categories by language of source? If someone is written in French, his quotes will be categorized into "French language".
 * By the way, T.S.Eliot was born in America, studied in Harverd and later emigranted to the UK, if I recall correctly. --Aphaia 10:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * First, you are right about Eliot's birthplace/adopted homeland. Forgive my error, and please put it down to my dyslexia, not any lack of competence on my part. But that isn't really here nor there. The point remains; he has two geographies. Which leads to the following.
 * I wish to assert that my idea (and subsequent effort) was not at all concerned with ethnicity. In fact, I probably have myself to blame for that misunderstanding by using the word "nationality." By this, I mean something more along the lines of citizenship. Example, T. S. Eliot is under both Category:Missourians and Category:Englishmen. You could say this is because he was born in Missouri, and settled in England.
 * I do not understand how mother tongue comes into this debate. It was not the intent of this category tree to infer language, but location. Nor was its goal to divvy up entries by ethnicities. That is utterly pointless, unless he or she is relevant in such a way, e.g. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 * Finally, I do not see how geography is a danger to NPOV. If you are born, or worked mostly in, Sweden, what is so subjective about, in a reference source as this, relating you to Sweden? Once more, I must insist this is not about background or ideologies or ethnicity. It was simply an effort to organize the entries in a harmlessly useful manner. -- Benn M 10:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * In principle, your efforts should be very much appreciated I think, but I also think that planning in advance by discussing it here would be a good idea, so we wouldn't create a mess in the categories. First thing that comes to mind is that you seem to be ahead of the wikipedia categories, i.e. adding New Yorkers and Ohioans etc. etc. - I would assume that being in sync with the wikipedia categories is a desirable goal for us? Or maybe I'm wrong? Perhaps you should start by creating wikipedia categories, where more people would review what you do? As for the specific categories that you have in mind, the word Americans is ambiguous, and therefore can create results that might be considered weird, like, you created 'Americans' as a subcategory of 'North Americans', instead of the other way around... If you want a complete tree, it could lead to stuff like 'Central Americans'/'South Americans' => 'Latin Americans' => 'Americans'. BTW, Aphaia, what is our "POV policy"? You're right that Gdansk and similar huge disputes being put into a certain category would be POV, but other than categories, what else might be considered POV here? Also, if we choose to follow wikipedia's lead on categories, it'd be their mess, not ours:) Sams 10:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Very apt. I have already thought of the problem of the ambiguity of the word American. Beginning at Category:People you can follow the entire tree down to the bottom, for every case. In addition, I have long felt that Wikipedia's sister projects are in fact siblings with equal suffrage, not subservient to the almighty "Pedia Precedent". I did not create the "People by nationality" category; if I had, I would have chosen different wording. "People by principle geography" would be my initial choice. I agree that I was probably overzealous in starting this thing immediately upon conception, and am now putting a moratorium on my efforts in that realm pending discussion here. -- Benn M 10:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm basically in favor of multiple categorizations, and can see the utility of having "people by geography" or whatever. But I have to agree with Aphaia that it's a Pandora's box of problems. Taking the cited example of Sweden, which Sweden would that be? Would it include Götaland (which was part of ancient Denmark)? Finland (part of Sweden for centuries)? Norway (politically subject to Sweden for much of the 19th century)? (Check out the table at Structure of the Swedish Realm on Wikipedia to see how messy defining "Sweden" can be.) Late 20th-century people that we are, we tend to think of most national boundaries as relatively static and uncontroversial, but a quick review of the CIA World Factbook (and for that matter, any day's news headlines) shows just how limited a view that is. (If you can draw an geographical line between Israel and Palestine that sticks, you're sure to win the Nobel Peace Prize.) I think that resistance to this form of categorization might have more to do with avoiding hassles than rejecting a potentially useful idea. — Jeff Q (talk) 22:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand and recognize this qualm, but in my mind it has a couple relatively simple solutions.
 * Place a caveat on the Category:People by nationality page (I really want that name to be changed) that states that the sorting is by contemporary boundaries, even if it refers to historical figures. PRO: This would eliminate such potentially bothersome sub-sub-subcategories based on history and time period. CON: If someone is looking for quotes by Byzantines, they would have to know to check Turkey, Greece & the Balkans, and Palestine. Messy in of itself.
 * Place people under the historically concurrent names of their geography's region. PRO: This means that we aren't ignoring the vast difference between Asia Minor today (mostly Muslim, Turkic) and one thousand years ago (mostly Christian, Greek). CON: Once more, someone would have to know what the hell "Byzantine" refers before it could be of any use to them.
 * All these things aside, let me suggest that we not be perfectionist about the thing. Yes, it needs to be competent, understandable and useable, but it does not have to be perfect. If a flub opens up, it can be fixed with very little stress and only a little more time. I would therefore advocate continuing on under a probationary period, after which if it continues to prove unwieldy and its benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks, the experiment be terminated. -- Benn M 08:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I consider it a useful way of categorizing people. I created the People by nationality category to collect Benn M's work and don't mind it being changed but note that it does involve more work than moving a page and so should be well-considered and agreed upon before doing the work of changing categories. Rmhermen 04:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep current "only by occupation" system, but don't oppose someone develops to another type schemes. But categories by nationality could be a pot of gunpowder actually. I heard recently edit wars are happening on Polish Wikipedia, if a certain person is categorized into Polish or German (born in Poland nowadays but spoke and wrote in German, like that). If a rough sketcy of category scheme is available before putting categories, it would be nice. --Aphaia 08:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opera
I categorized Aida under Category:Opera and found we hadn't it. On Wikipedia Opera is subcategories of both Theatrical genre and Musical genre. We have already Plays. I hesitate to categorize Opera under Plays somehow. Is there any good solution? For my eyes Wikipedia scheme is a too complicated to serve our project (there are many subcategories we would never need). --Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

 * Tongue in cheek: Categorize under "Things appearing in Buffy the Vampire Slayer", which would be a subcategory of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", subcategory of "Television shows" :)
 * Less tongue in cheek: Operas are plays -- just ones in which the actors sing their part rather than speaking it. I vote for a Category:Operas under Category:Plays ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
 * Partly so, but partly disagreed. Many Opera fan think it as a sort of musical genre - another group think it as a theatrical genre. For the former it should be paralell with "Lyrics" (if we have). We have to stand in NPOV and it is not acceptable to stand in only one side. And besids NPOV it would be inconvinient for musical fans. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 07:21 (UTC)

 * Wait a minute, I don't understand what you're objecting to. To me it's obvious that it should be under Plays, and I fail to see how the NPOV argument argues against that. You seem to be arguing that it should also belong to a different, non-existing, category which nothing else belongs to. I don't object to adding Opera to another category, and certainly I didn't object to a Music category (under which Musicians, Bands and Opera would be grouped). What I pointed out is that having Category:Operas have Category:Plays seems natural. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)

Categories needing some work
(Moved from WQ:VP)

 * 1) I'm not sure what to do re: Category:Boyd Rice and Friends albums.
 * 2) I'm not sure what should be the parent category of Category:Anime.

I think all other categories should be ok now...I've given them a once over in an attempt to organize them somewhat, it's quite possible that more reorg should be done. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

 * Should I move the discussion to Wikiquote talk:Category schemes? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)

 * I am not sure but Category schemes sounds good. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)

Currently we have close to 1,000 articles without categories. Most of them are not just categorized yet, but some seem to have no suitable category. Like Abigail Adams. So first we need to fill such blanks. Next we need to reorganize category trees. Some categorie need to be created new, some to be merged and deleted sometimes. And I am not sure it could be a solution "okay we can just import the English Wikipedia category schemes" way, because it is too huge for our project and contain many possibly unused categories here. --Aphaia 7 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)

 * Is there a way to get a list of uncategorized articles? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 7 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)
 * Special Pages --> Uncategorized pages Rmhermen 8 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
 * Or try User:Jeffq/Admin shortcuts. --Aphaia 8 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)

terrorists
The terrorist category might be a Pandora box. The fact that bin Laden is a terrorist is not contested, but if you leave this category in place then sooner or later someone will try to add western leaders into it, claiming they fit the Definition of terrorism much better than bin Laden etc., i.e. state terrorism. Though it might be possible to either rename or make it clear that this cat only refers to retail terrorism. wikipedia:Category:Terrorism is quite evolved, but bin Laden etc. aren't listed as terrorists because of this reason. There're of course tons of debates on talk pages, one example from Jimmy Wales. I think that if we break it down in a more detailed way then we may avoid the possible problems, i.e. have bin Laden etc. in a 'Al-Qaeda members' cat, and if there would be a wikiquote Al-Qaeda article then its cat would be 'terrorist organizations', etc. Or we could just do nothing and see what'd come up:) Sams 09:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a good idea for us to have "Terrorists" category; therefore I don't support to include Osama bin Ladin into this category. As same as "tyrants" or "dictators" it would be not only a Pandora box but also a strongly NPOV-challanged category. I would like to propose categorize his "Political leaders", "Islamic political leaders" and so on. It happens quite often that a hero for someone is a traitor or a terrorist for others. And a dispute like "who is a terrorist or not" must be unproductive. --Aphaia 09:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see how it is non-NPOV. There is a clear definition, and Bin Laden falls into it -- by his own admission, he has sponsored violence against civilians, and he's not a leader of a country which is at war...What's non-NPOV about it? All the above has clear evidence. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, Ronald Reagan labelled the Afghan Mujahideen, which included bin Laden, as "freedom fighters". The definition isn't too clear, e.g. "violence against civilians" as you put it might not apply to the bombing of the Pentagon on 9/11, so that wasn't an act of terror? Again, the fact that bin Laden is a terrorist is not really contested by anyone, certainly not by me. The problem is that too many people might fit into this cat, so if you leave it as it is, someone who visits the bin Laden article and sees it might go to the George W. Bush article and add him into this cat, etc. etc. - therefore perhaps we should think of ways to avoid such debates by having different cats. Sams 11:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no clear definition. Wikipedia's Definition of terrorism explicitly says "there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism", and after listing several criteria including "the target is civilian/noncombatant" and "the perpetrator is non-governmental", it concludes that "none of these is universally accepted as being either necessary or sufficent". If we can't even agree on what constitutes an adequate definition, and Wikipedia says their isn't one, we have no means to limit the people added to this category. We need more than just an extreme example. Agreeing that bin Laden is a terrorist (which I feel certain is not universal, however well-deserved IMHO) is like agreeing that Bill Gates belongs in a "rich people" category — it doesn't help us define who else should or shouldn't be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't feel that strongly about it, but I do feel strongly about needing categories. I propose that whoever thinks Category:Terrorists is a bad idea should at the very least find alternative categorizations for Ulrike and Osama (activists? violent activists?) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * And what is meant by "violent"? "Violent activists" could arguably include Clayton Lee Waagner, the guy sentenced for mailing anthrax to abortion clinics; Greenpeace members who practice "eco-terrorism" when they disrupt businesses by forcing them to ram stationary boats in order to do their work; or even any Pro-Choice activist, since they fight for the right to commit "murder". You see where I'm going, I hope. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * So what do you suggest as a useful NPOV category? :)
 * Also, please look at w:Category:Terrorists
 * ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Comics
I've already been somewhat bold and recategorized the 10 web comics we have in a seperate subcategory of Category:Comics -- Category:Web comics. Other than that, I have plans which are possibly more controversial, so I wanted to air them out. I want to create a "Marvel comics" (containing Astonishing X-Men, X-Men (comics) and Ultimate Spider-Man) and "DC comics" (containing Gotham Central, Justice League and Watchmen). This seems to me like a good idea, since these two categories are each 0.25 of the overall category, and between web comics and them, they leave few things in the base category. If people think it is too soon, I am willing to wait until I contribute a couple more Marvel comics articles from stuff I have lying around the house. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me. DC and Marvel, the Big 2 in the U.S., are obvious subcategorizatons, and web comics deserve their own cat if for no other reason than to make it easy to examine this growing genre that has generated some controversy on WQ. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Done ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal
Please see Category talk:Fundamental ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Reorganizing top-level

 * 1) Redirect List of categories to Category schemes
 * 2) Recategorize Category:People under Category:Main page
 * 3) * If all the above are done, this would leave in Fundamental only Category:Lists and Category:Science fiction.
 * 4) Recategorize Category:Main page under Category:Fundamental: this means the top-level will have two categories: Fundamental (which would be thought of as "Content categories") and Wikiquote (which would be thought of as "Process categories").

I believe all these suggestions will finally bring coherence to the "top-level" of the wikiquote category schemes. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Jeff mentioned some unspecified resevations about those, so I am going to wait a while for some kind of feedback. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Omp~enwikiquote

Today a man knows the price of everything and the value of nothing

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Omp. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Omp~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Omp~enwikiquote


text:
Bill Richardson

William Blaine "Bill" Richardson (born November 15, 1947) is an American politician and a member of the Democratic Party. He has served as a Congressman, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, and U.S. Secretary of Energy. He was elected Governor of New Mexico in 2002. He was also chairman of the 2004 Democratic National Convention that nominated John Kerry for the presidency.

Quotes

 * Make no mistake, the point of cutting the personal income tax and the capital gains cut is to send an unmistakable message to business.
 * upon passage of supply side tax cuts

 * John McCain may pay hundreds of dollars for his shoes, but we're the ones who will pay for his flip-flops.
 * at 2008 Democratic National Convention

title: Bill Richardson


text:
Munir Said Thalib

Munir Said Thalib (December 8, 1965 – September 7, 2004), known simply by his first name Munir, was Indonesia's most famous human rights and anti-corruption activist. The founder of the Kontras human rights organisation and laureate of the Right Livelihood Award, Munir was poisoned with arsenic in 2004 on a Garuda Indonesia airline flight from Jakarta to Amsterdam while travelling to Utrecht University to pursue a doctorate in international law and human rights.

Quotes About Munir
After Munir was assassinated, the Right Livelihood Foundation of Sweden, which had awarded him their prestigious 2000 prize for his work to gain civillian control over the Indonesian Military and expose military atrocities, issued this statement:

 * "Human rights in the sense of human solidarity has created a new universal and equal language going beyond racial, gender, ethnic or religious boundaries. That is why we consider it a doorway to dialogue for people of all socio-cultural groups and all ideologies."
 * Source: Right Livelihood Award

title: Munir Said Thalib


text:
The Invisible Man (2000 TV series)

The Invisible Man, a 2000–2002 U.S. television series, is one of several that have been conceptually based on H. G. Wells's book of the same name. In this variation, con artist Darien Fawkes takes part in an experiment that implants in him a "quicksilver" gland, allowing him to become invisible. But he must work for a government agency in order to receive treatments to keep the gland from driving him insane.

Pilot [1.1]

 * Huiclov: The aution's in three days. What are you going to do? You're going to walk in empty-handed?(points to his stomach) "Oh, the disk is in here."
 * Arnaud: My hands are never empty.
 * Huiclov: Oh, no, there's too much blood on them.

 * (Darien remembers more of the trial)
 * Bernstein: He tried to have his way with me. I can still feel his hands groping me! The bastard. I'm telling you, that son of a bitch robbed me of my manhood.

 * Bernstein: I don't know how long I was out. But when I woke up, he was trying to have his way with me. The bastard.

Pilot [1.2]

 * Darian: Who are you guys? CIA? NSA?
 * (The Official points at DFG plaque)
 * Darian: U.S. Department of Fish and Game? You gotta be freakin' kidding me!

 * Hobbes: You're out of your league.
 * Darien: Oh I'm out of my league - oh yes, what league would that be? Oh, of course, the psycho secret agent softball league.

The Catevari 1.3]

 * Darien: What's the best thing about government service? For me, it's the health plan. You can get better, you can get worse, or you can get with the program. This is the story of how Darien Fawkes got all three.

 * Darien: Can I ask you a question? All right, let's say I use this little gift thing right. Okay, you know, play the hero, do everything I'm supposed to. How do I know I don't end up just like Charles Fogurty?
 * Claire: Trust me.

 * Darien: Santiana once said, "Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it." Well if that's true, then I'm screwed, cause here I am, repeating history all over again.

Ralph [1.4]

 * Darien: To Darien Fawkes, Jessica Semplar would always be The Kid. On the whole it was nothing new. All the women in my life leave me. Difference is, to them I was a man. To her I was magic. How do you say goodbye to that?

 * Darien: In his very first story, Sherlock Holmes met his match. Her name was Irene Adler. But as Dr. Watson points out, she was always the woman. The woman who eluded him. The woman who got away. For Sherlock, it was a mystery. For me, it was elementary.

Tiresias [1.5]

 * Darien: The Scottish philosopher, Balfour, said that "Destiny is the scapegoat we make responsible for our crimes". He was probably right, too. This philosophy, known as determinism, was best summed up by Doris Day, with the words, "que sera, sera". Now, I'm not saying she was right, but if it was between Doris and the Scottish dude, I'd party with her any day.

 * Darien: Somebody once told me that if a stoplight turns red before you can cross, your life changes forever. I'll buy that it changes but, just 'til the next morning. Then it's a whole new deal."

Impetus [1.6]

 * (watching Claire as she dances)
 * Darien: What was that the Keeper said, that there were certain sides of her I'd never see? If she only knew how many sides of her I could see.

 * Darien: Now, I think it was a Brit named Sir Robert Walpole who coined the phrase, "All men have their price." Now, I happen to agree. Although my point of view on the matter's changed. See, I used to think my price would be money or diamonds or gold. You know? Well, imaging my surprise when I realized that my price has become a needle in the arm.

 * Darien: Hey, you know when in cartoons there is a little angel on the one shoulder and a little devil on the other one. Well these days I try, I really try to listen to the angel... But with me somehow the devil always wins.

The Devil You Know [1.7]

 * Darien: F. Scott Fitzgerald once said to Ernest Hemingway, "Rich people are different from you and me." To which Hemingway replied, "Yeah, they got more money." Which brings me to a personal favorite of mine, Willie Sutton, who said, "The reason I rob banks is 'cause that's where the money is."

Liberty and Larceny [1.8]

 * Darien: Liz's motto for goodbye was always, "Faster is better." Kind of like tearing off a Band-Aid. Of course, if the wound beneath isn't healed yet, nothing helps except time. And time leaves a big, nasty scar we call the past.

 * Keeper: When you go invisible the only person, who can truly watch you, is yourself.
 * Darien: Wow... could you print that out and put it on a key chain for me.

 * Darien: There's a little known law of the universe: when someone who own a mansion hires you to steal something, it can never end well.

The Value of Secrets [1.9]

 * Darien: I got a question. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, how much knowledge does a person need before they're safe? My guess? I'll never be safe again.

 * Darien: A 19th century scientist, Thomas Huxly, once asked, "If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, how much knowledge does a person need before they're safe?" My guess? A whole hell of a lot.

Separation Anxiety [1.10]

 * Brock: That's not a regulation haircut.
 * Darien: Well, I guess I'll just have to keep my hat on.
 * Brock: I told you I was calling the shots.
 * Darien: It's fine. You wanna call a time out while I go finda barber shop, that's cool.
 * Brock: You're as big an ass pain as your partner.
 * Darien: Yeah, believe me, once you get to know me, you'll find I'm much worse.

Major cast

 * Vincent Ventresca — Darien Fawkes
 * Paul Ben-Victor — Bobby Hobbes
 * Shannon Kenny — The Keeper/Claire Keeply
 * Eddie Jones — The Official/Charles Bowden
 * Michael McCafferty — Albert Eberts
 * Brandy Ledford — Agent Alex Monroe

title: The Invisible Man (2000 TV series)


text:
Harper Lee

Nelle Harper Lee (born April 28, 1926 – February 19, 2016) was an American novelist and author of the classic 1960 novel, To Kill a Mockingbird.
 * See also:
 * To Kill a Mockingbird (1962 film)

Quotes

 * Well, they’re Southern people, and if they know you are working at home they think nothing of walking right in for coffee. But they wouldn’t dream of interrupting you at golf.
 * On why she has done her best creative thinking while playing golf, as quoted in Time (12 May 1980)

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

 * Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.
 * Epigraph, quoting Charles Lamb

 * Until I feared I would lose it, I never loved to read. One does not love breathing.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 2
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch

 * You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 3
 * Atticus Finch

 * As I inched sluggishly along the treadmill of the Maycomb County school system, I could not help receiving the impression that I was being cheated out of something. Out of what I knew not, yet I did not believe that twelve years of unrelieved boredom was exactly what the state had in mind for me.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 4
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch

 * And it's certainly bad, but when a man spends his relief checks on green whiskey his children have a way of crying from hunger pains. I don't know of any landowner around here who begrudges those children any game their father can hit. Of course he shouldn't, but he'll never change his ways. Are you going to take out your disapproval on his children?
 * Pt. 1, ch.3
 * Atticus Finch

 * The sixth grade seemed to please him from the beginning: he went through a brief Egyptian Period that baffled me — he tried to walk flat a great deal, sticking one arm in front of him and one in back of him, putting one foot behind the other. He declared Egyptians walked that way; I said if they did I didn't see how they got anything done, but Jem said they accomplished more than the Americans ever did, they invented toilet paper and perpetual embalming, and asked where would we be today if they hadn't? Atticus told me to delete the adjectives and I'd have the facts.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 7
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch

 * When a child asks you something, answer him, for goodness' sake. But don't make a production of it. Children are children, but they can spot an evasion quicker than adults, an evasion simply muddles 'em.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 9
 * Atticus Finch

 * Bad language is a stage all children go through, and it dies with time when they learn they're not attracting attention with it, hotheadedness isn't.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 9
 * Atticus Finch

 * Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don't pretend to understand.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 9
 * Atticus Finch

 * "I'd rather you shot at tin cans in the back yard, but I know you'll go after birds. Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird." That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it. “Your father's right," she said. "Mockingbirds don't do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens, don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
 * Pt. 1, ch. 10
 * Atticus Finch & Maudie Atkinson

 * People in their right minds never take pride in their talents.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 10
 * Miss Maudie

 * They're certainly entitled to think that, and they're entitled to full respect for their opinions... but before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 11
 * Atticus Finch

 * It was times like these when I thought my father, who hated guns and had never been to any wars, was the bravest man who ever lived.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 11
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch

 * It's never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn't hurt you.
 * Pt.1, ch.11
 * Atticus Finch

 * I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.
 * Pt. 1, ch. 11
 * Atticus Finch

 * Folks don’t like to have somebody around knowin’ more than they do. It aggravates ‘em. You’re not gonna change any of them by talkin’ right, they’ve got to want to learn themselves, and when they don’t want to learn there’s nothing you can do but keep your mouth shut or talk their language.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 12
 * Calpurnia

 * She seemed glad to see me when I appeared in the kitchen, and by watching her I began to think there was some skill involved in being a girl.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 12
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch

 * Atticus had said it was the polite thing to talk to people about what they were interested in, not about what you were interested in.
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch
 * Pt. 2, ch. 16

 * So it took an eight-year-old child to bring 'em to their senses.... That proves something — that a gang of wild animals can be stopped, simply because they're still human. Hmp, maybe we need a police force of children.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 16
 * Atticus Finch

 * Apparently, Mayella's recital had given her confidence, but it was not her father's brash kind: there was something stealthy about hers, like a steady-eyed cat with a twitchy tail.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 18

 * Slowly but surely I began to see the pattern of questions: from questions that Mr.Gilmer did not deem sufficiently irrelevant or immaterial to object to, Atticus was quietly building up before the jury the picture of the Ewell's home life.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 18
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch

 * I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system — that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality. Gentlemen, a court is no better than each man of you sitting before me on this jury. A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 20
 * Atticus Finch

 * The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box. As you grow older, you’ll see white men cheat black men every day of your life, but let me tell you something and don’t you forget it — whenever a white man does that to a black man, no matter who he is, how rich he is, or how fine a family he comes from, that white man is trash.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 23
 * Atticus Finch

 * But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal — there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court. It can be the Supreme Court of the United States or the humblest J.P. court in the land, or this honourable court which you serve. Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levellers, and in our courts all men are created equal.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 20
 * Atticus Finch

"You got it backwards, Dill," said Jem. "Clowns are sad, it's folks that laugh at them." "Well, I'm gonna be a new kind of clown. I'm gonna stand in the middle of the ring and laugh at the folks."
 *  "I think I'll be a clown when I get grown," said Dill. "Yes, sir, a clown.... There ain't one thing in this world I can do about folks except laugh, so I'm gonna join the circus and laugh my head off."
 * Pt. 2, ch. 22

 * I think there's just one kind of folks. Folks.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 23
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch

 * In the secret courts of men's hearts Atticus had no case. Tom was a dead man the minute Mayella Ewell opened her mouth and screamed.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 25

"Most people are, Scout, when you finally see them."
 * "An' they chased him 'n' never could catch him 'cause they didn't know what he looked like, an' Atticus, when they finally saw him, why he hadn't done any of those things... Atticus, he was real nice..."
 * Pt. 2, ch. 31
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch & Atticus Finch

 * Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them. Just standing on the Radley porch was enough.
 * Pt. 2, ch. 31
 * Jean Louise (Scout) Finch

 * From now on it’ll be everybody less one—

 * That’s because you can’t hold something in your mind but a little while, said Jem. It’s different with grown folks, we—

 * Well if you don’t want me to grow up talkin‘ that way, why do you send me to school?

 * Atticus said that Jem was trying hard to forget something, but what he was really doing was storing it away for a while, until enough time passed. Then he would be able to think about it and sort things out. When he was able to think about it, Jem would be himself again.

 * ...before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself.

 * ...brown but backwards

 * Each child was supposed to clip an item from a newspaper, absorb its contents, and reveal them to the class. This practice allegedly overcame a variety of evils: standing in front of his fellows encouraged good posture and gave a child poise; delivering a short talk made him word-conscious; learning his current event strengthened his memory; being singled out made him more than ever anxious to return to the Group.

 * ...he said if enough people—a stadium full, maybe—were to concentrate on one thing, such as setting a tree afire in the woods, that the tree would ignite of its own accord. I toyed with the idea of asking everyone below to concentrate on setting Tom Robinson free, but

 * It was times like these when I thought my father, who hated guns and had never been to any wars, was the bravest man who ever lived.

 * Mount Everest: throughout my early life, she was cold and there.

 * ...reasonable men, they went because we were there. There’s something in our world that makes men lose their heads—they couldn’t be fair if they tried.

 * Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit ‘em, but remember it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.

 * There is not a person in this courtroom who has never told a lie, who has never done an immoral thing, and there is no man living who has never looked upon a woman without desire.

 * When the new wore off his grandfather’s watch, and carrying it became a day’s burdensome task, Jem no longer felt the necessity of ascertaining the hour every five minutes.

 * You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view - until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.

Quotes about Lee

 * I remember the lasting impression that Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird had on me. I read that book again every decade or so.
 * Isabel Allende Interview

 * She's like a national treasure. She's someone who has made a difference … with this book. The book is still as strong as it ever was, and so is the film. All the kids in the United States read this book and see the film in the seventh and eighth grades and write papers and essays. My husband used to get thousands and thousands of letters from teachers who would send them to him.
 * Veronique Peck, widow of Gregory Peck, as quoted in "Harper Lee raises her low profile for a friend; The author of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' shuns fanfare. But for the kin of Gregory Peck" by Irene Lacher in The Los Angeles Times (21 May 2005), p. E 1

 * I crossed a threshold of reader pride after finishing “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
 * Amy Tan interview (2013)

title: Harper Lee


text:
Nathaniel Branden

Nathaniel Branden (9 April 1930 – 3 December 2014) was a psychotherapist and writer most famous for his works on the psychology of self-esteem. Once an associate of novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, Branden had a prominent role in promoting Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.

Quotes

 * One of the mistakes that Rand makes is that after she condemns a belief or an action, she goes on to tell you the psychology of the person who did it, as if she knows. I focus my judgment on the action and not on the person. My primary interest is: do I admire or dislike this behavior? And there, judgment is important for me. People often attribute all kinds of things to another person, without ever knowing where that person’s coming from. Most of the time, I regard the judgment of people as a waste of time. I regard the judgment of behavior as imperative.
 * Interview by Alec Mouhibian in The Free Radical (November 2004)

 * Rand always says, “Never pass up an opportunity to pass moral judgment.” Well I say: “Look for an opportunity to do something more useful instead.” Nobody was led to virtue by being told he was a scoundrel.
 * Interview by Alec Mouhibian in The Free Radical (November 2004)

"Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice" (1963)

 * An influential essay signed "March 1963". First published in ', Vol. II, No. 3 (March 1963). Reprinted in, ' (1964 book), as chapter 2. Reprinted in Branden,  (1969 book).

 * Man's need of self-esteem entails the need for a sense of control over reality – but no control is possible in a universe which, by one's own concession, contains the supernatural, the miraculous and the causeless, a universe in which one is at the mercy of ghosts and demons, in which one must deal, not with the unknown, but with the unknowable; no control is possible if man proposes, but a ghost disposes; no control is possible if the universe is a haunted house.
 * As reprinted in,  (1964; 2014 ebook), ISBN 978-1-101-13722-2, p. 44.

The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (1994)

 * It would be hard to name a more certain sign of poor self-esteem than the need to perceive some other group as inferior.

 * Pride is the emotional reward of achievement. It is not a vice to be overcome but a virtue to be attained.

title: Nathaniel Branden


text:
Talk:Nathaniel Branden

This is my first contribution here, so I'm not sure I'm doing it right. If anyone wants to fix it for me, that would be cool. Thanks, Dave 05:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Complaints
Bra nden Later became opposed to Rand after the affair ended. There are things about his disagreements with the philosophy. Let's look around.

pseudo self-esteem
Pseudo Self-esteem is the illusion of self-efficacy and self-respect without the reality. It is a non-rational, self-protective device to diminish anxiety and to provide a spurious sense of security - to assuage our need for authentic self-esteem while allowing the real causes of its lack to remain unexamined. It is based on values unrelated to that which genuine self-efficacy and self-respect require....instead of valuing personal authenticity, we may value belonging to the right clubs,...instead of practicing appropriate self-assertion, we may practice uncritical compliance to our particular group. instead of seeking self-respect through honesty, we may seek it through philanthropy... instead of striving for the power of competence.[genuine values]..we may pursue the "power" of manipulating or controlling other people. The possibilities for self-deception are almost endless.

pg. 51-2; The Six Pillars of Self-esteem. by Nathaniel Branden

Unsourced

 * Most of these were simply provided a citation link that no longer works — better citation is needed

On Objectivism and Ayn Rand:

 * Most of the failings of Objectivism all pertain directly or indirectly to issues of psychology.

 * Objectivism says the sole purpose of government is to protect individual rights. I would say the primary purpose of government is to protect individual rights. And any other activities that the government may claim justification for doing must not be of an order that violates anybody’s rights. For example, some national weather disaster in which certain problems can arise that the marketplace has no way to respond to quickly enough. Or diseases that travel across borders and don’t respect passport laws. I will leave the door open for emergency situations that I just can’t imagine being resolved in a market context. If they could be, then they should be. But the fact of emergencies should not be made as justification for violating individual rights, so as you can see, it’s a very tiny difference.

 * When your principles seem to be demanding suicide, clearly it’s time to check your premises.

 * For somebody who presents herself as a champion of the joy of living, [Rand] has very rigid rules about the path you must walk on in your pursuit of enjoyment. Of all the objections to Objectivism, none is stupider than the claim that we are a hedonistic philosophy. Man, we are as rigid as the Catholic Church in the 13th century, you know?

 * I’m very aware of that over-application of the trader principle, as if that’s all you need to know to understand human relationships. Good God... [W]ho among you, tell the truth, last time you played with a little kid—or a dog, did you think you’re going to have a trade relationship with the dog later in life, for crying out loud? Because there’s a good analogy there... As a dog-lover, when I’m looking at a dog nose to nose, the trade is happening right now. The interaction is the reward... Anybody who doesn’t understand that, I don’t wish to speak to. My official response to such people: they can go fuck themselves.

 * Objectivism comes on, sometimes, as if the most important issue you have to understand is the issue of egoism versus altruism. But that’s nowhere near the beginning of the process.

 * Ernest Van Den Haag, a sociologist, wrote a fascinating book called The Jewish Mystique. I read that book, got a lot out of it, and went over to Ayn and said, “I’ve got to tell you something shocking.” Because we never thought of ourselves as Jewish in any important way, I announced, laughing, “We are both exponents of the Jewish messianic tradition. We believe we are here on earth to be signposts pointing to the good life.” What I got out of that book was how Jewish that was. The whole idea of these prophets coming along, or however he was describing it—it fit Ayn and me to a tee. I thought that was very funny.

On the psychology of ideology:
 * In order to have any sense of control over our own life, we need to know that we’re able to make sense out of our experience, in all of its many aspects. It’s the need that religion addresses, that philosophy addresses... if you have a moral code that you do your best to live up to, other things being equal, it’s very positive in its consequences for your self esteem, even if the moral code is in some ways mistaken. If you conscientiously try to live it to the best of your ability, that would have a salutary effect on your self-esteem. If you violate it, it would have a negative effect on your self-esteem. But suppose you have nothing to violate, no worldview—that absence will limit your self-esteem, because you need to feel aligned with reality. You need feel that you are in appropriate contact with the real world. Now your theory of what the real world is might be right or wrong. But so long as you are able to believe that you are in contact with the real world and are acting on that knowledge, your self-esteem benefits... Regardless, upsetting as it may be to orthodox Objectivists, I think you can show that in the short run and in [a coerced] environment, a person who has some overarching faith has a better chance of surviving. But I wouldn’t explain that all away by saying ignorance is bliss. The point is to understand what function a belief system provides. Then you can understand why an imperfect one is sometimes beneficial.

On Ronald Reagan:
 * He has been a very underestimated man by his opponents. I think that his understanding and handling of our relationship with the Soviet Union was brilliant. Gorbachev himself gives Reagan credit for effectively ending the Cold War. Are there areas where I would disagree with him? Sure. He was opposed to abortion. He did not believe in total laissez-faire capitalism. He did build up our national debt enormously. But I tell you one thing he did that impressed me so much it almost wipes everything else off the mat. It’s something I found thrilling beyond words. And that was: he was in Russia, and he gave a speech in the University of Moscow. And the theme of the speech was to explain to the people there what American capitalism is. Here is the president of the United States, in a distinguished university in a country with whom we’ve had hostile relationships for decades—getting up, and in the most passionate yet totally non-belligerent way, explaining what economic freedom means, what capitalism means. It was so extraordinary in the moral clarity that he brought to his presentation that I’ll remember it, with great admiration, forever.

title: Talk:Nathaniel Branden