text:
Hugh Gaitskell

Hugh Todd Naylor Gaitskell (9 April 1906 – 18 January 1963) was a British politician and leader of the Labour Party from 1955 until his death.

Quotes

 * [ Chartism ] might have become purely proletarian—in which case there would always have been a tendency towards revolution—or it might have progressed by a middle and working class alliance—in which case a pacific policy was almost essential. In fact...the extremists undermined the case of the moderates and the moderates queered the pitch of the extremists. Nevertheless it is unlikely, even if their respective fields had been clear, that either could have succeeded.
 * Chartism: An Introductory Essay (1929), p. 85

 * The success of the middle class alliance depended on the acceptance by the working class element of middle class leadership and middle class ideas.
 * Chartism: An Introductory Essay (1929), p. 85

 * The destruction of this inequality, the creating and maintaining of a society in which it cannot exist becomes the essential and direct purpose of all Socialist activity.
 * 'Socialism and Wage Policy' (1933), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 41

 * [T]he fundamental objective and criterion by which policy must be judged [is] the achievement of Economic Equality... [W]ithout it Labour policy becomes merely opportunist, distinguishable only from the policies of other parties by the suggestion of attractive means to 'Prosperity', a greater humanitarianism, and, as some would have it, far less favourable circumstances in which to take action... A failure to advance in the direction of that ideal [of social justice] is bound to appear little short of betrayal.
 * 'Socialism and Wage Policy' (1933), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 41

 * I was a witness of two civil wars and their ghastly and tragic consequences, and I learnt, as never before, to value the freedom of British political traditions.
 * Chatham News (28 December 1934), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 59

 * It must be admitted that politically communism is the same [as fascism ].
 * Notes for a speech on Fascism at Chatham on May Day 1935, quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 44

 * Socialists should understand that it is their duty to do anything in their power directly or indirectly to assist the revolutionary opposition within fascist countries.
 * Report on Labour's foreign policy summer school in Geneva (2 October 1935), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 59

 * So long as production is left to the uncontrolled decisions of private individuals, conducted, guided and inspired by the motive of profit, so long will Poverty, Insecurity and Injustice continue.
 * 'Why I Am a Socialist', South Leeds Worker (December 1937), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 68

 * Fascism has become the last defence of a crumbling economic system. It is the last bulwark of Capitalism.
 * 'Notes for Lecturers to the LLY [Labour League of Youth]' (1938), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), pp. 84-85

 * While prepared to fight for the democratic ideals as such and for the ideal of collective security as such there is little to attract us in fighting merely to preserve the territorial integrity of the British Empire.
 * Memorandum (5 October 1938), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 85

 * Peace can only be secured by re-establishing the rule of law in international affairs...neither a neo-nationalism nor a cowardly surrender to Fascism will be accepted by the vast mass of our people. For the moment rearmament is also essential...the scandalous gaps in our defences have become a byword.
 * The Beeston Democrat (November 1938), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 88

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power

 * I want to say a word about industrial relations in this industry. This takes my mind back nearly 20 years when, fresh from the University, inexperienced but keen, I started my earning career by lecturing in a small mining town... That was in 1927 just after the end of the coal strike. I do not know that I taught the miners much in the way of economics, but they taught me a great deal. They taught me what economic feudalism was. They taught me what the naked exercise of arbitrary economic power meant. They taught me what it was to be victimised... They taught me what was the reality of economic life.
 * Speech in the House of Commons during the Third Reading of the Coal Nationalisation Bill (2 May 1946)

Chancellor of the Exchequer

 * Between the wars, the heavy unemployment in Great Britain and keenly competitive conditions abroad were factors which had to be taken into account in wage negotiations. Employers were afraid that higher wages, by adding to their costs, would make it more difficult for them to sell their goods, especially in export markets. If this happened unemployment would increase and workers' representatives had to bear this in mind also. The larger the number of unemployed, also, the more difficult it was to maintain full workers' solidarity, i.e. an employer could resist a strike, and make cuts in wages more easily the more workers were out of work. Thus in the last resort it was the existence of heavy unemployment, at home and abroad, which allowed employers to resist wage claims and discouraged workers from pressing them too far.
 * Memorandum, 'Wages and Prices and Full Employment' (1 December 1950), quoted in Correlli Barnett, The Lost Victory: British Dreams, British Realities: 1945–1950 (1996), p. 350

 * Conditions have greatly changed in Great Britain since the end of the war owing to the existence of full employment. Negotiations about wages between the two sides of industry now take place in entirely different circumstances. There is no reserve of labour to compete for jobs. ... If wages rise faster than productivity the increases in cost can usually be passed on in increased selling prices. There is thus in the economic system very much less check on the upward movement of money wages. ... [I]f wages at home rise unchecked, it is more likely in general that exports will gradually cease to be competitive and there will be balance of payments difficulties. These can be met, in the end, by devaluation. A succession of devaluations completely undermines confidence in any currency. ... It is clear that a very difficult problem faces a country such as ours, which wishes to maintain full employment and yet to avoid the undoubted evils of rising prices and balance of payments difficulties abroad.
 * Memorandum, 'Wages and Prices and Full Employment' (1 December 1950), quoted in Correlli Barnett, The Lost Victory: British Dreams, British Realities: 1945–1950 (1996), pp. 350–352

 * In recent years, hours of work have been reduced, holidays have been increased, the age of entry into employment has gone up, and above all, our general health and expectation of life as a people have markedly improved. It is a natural corollary of these changes that we should work longer and retire later.
 * Budget speech in the House of Commons (10 April 1951)

Opposition MP

 * I am not easily roused to anger but I must say that this latest cry to cut back the spending of worse off people to cure a crisis mostly caused by too much spending by better off people is intolerable.
 * Daily Herald (7 October 1955), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 360

 * I just cannot share this Gandhi outlook... If people have more money to spend they may, it is true, gamble or smoke or drink it away. But a lot of them will also enjoy nicer holidays, which is a very good thing for them. We really must keep under control, and pretty strict control, the area within which "the man in Whitehall knows best".
 * Letter to the Socialist Union (14 October 1955), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 392

 * I am a Socialist and have been for some 30 years. I became a Socialist quite candidly not so much because I was a passionate advocate of public ownership but because at a very early age I came to hate and loathe social injustice, because I disliked the class structure of our society, because I could not tolerate the indefensible differences of status and income which disfigure our society...because I hated poverty and squalor... Pay people more if they do harder, more dangerous, and even more responsible work; pay people more if they have larger families. But the rewards should not be, as they still are, dependent upon the accident of whether you happen to be born of wealthy parents or not... I am a Socialist because I want to see fellowship, or if you prefer it, fraternity...[while preserving] the liberties we cherish. I want to see all this not only in our country but over the world as a whole. These to me are the Socialist ideals. Nationalisation...is a vital means, but it is only one of the means by which we can achieve these objects.
 * Speech to the Labour Party conference in Margate (October 1955), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 357

Leader of the Labour Party

 * We cannot forget that Colonel Nasser has repeatedly boasted of his intention to create an Arab empire from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf. The French Prime Minister, M. Mollet, the other day quoted a speech of Colonel Nasser's and rightly said that it could remind us only of one thing—of the speeches of Hitler before the war.
 * Speech in the House of Commons after Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal (2 August 1956)

 * The fact is that this episode must be recognised as part of the struggle for the mastery of the Middle East. That is something which I do not feel that we can ignore. One may ask, "Why does it involve the rest of the Middle East?" It is because of the prestige issues which are involved here. ... [P]restige has quite considerable effects. If Colonel Nasser's prestige is put up sufficiently and ours is put down sufficiently, the effects of that in that part of the world will be that our friends desert us because they think we are lost, and go over to Egypt.
 * Speech in the House of Commons after Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal (2 August 1956)

 * I have no doubt myself that the reason why Colonel Nasser acted in the way that he did, aggressively, brusquely, suddenly, was precisely because he wanted to raise his prestige in the rest of the Middle East. ... He wanted to challenge the West and to win. He wanted to assert his strength. He wanted to make a big impression. Quiet negotiation, discussion around a table about nationalising the Company would not produce this effect. It is all very familiar. It is exactly the same that we encountered from Mussolini and Hitler in those years before the war.
 * Speech in the House of Commons after Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal (2 August 1956)

 * All I can say is that in taking this decision the Government, in the view of Her Majesty's Opposition, have committed an act of disastrous folly whose tragic consequences we shall regret for years. [ HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] Yes, all of us will regret it, because it will have done irreparable harm to the prestige and reputation of our country.
 * Speech in the House of Commons against the Suez conflict (31 October 1956)

 * I don't believe the present Prime Minister can carry out this policy. His policy this last week has been disastrous and he is utterly, utterly discredited in the world. Only one thing now can save the reputation and honour of our country. Parliament must repudiate the Government's policy. The Prime Minister must resign.
 * Broadcast on the Suez Crisis (4 November 1956), quoted in The Times (5 November 1956), p. 4

 * It is wholly untrue that I deplored the strategy of the [general] strike. I did not honestly think a great deal about it. I knew that once the chips were down my part was on the side of the strike. I considered the Government had behaved badly to the miners and that was that.
 * Letter to J. P. O'Donnell (5 November 1958), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 19

 * You can be assured of this. There will be no increase in the standard or other rates of income tax under the Labour Government so long as normal peacetime conditions continue.
 * Speech in Newcastle during the general election campaign (28 September 1959), quoted in The Times (29 September 1959), p. 10

 * I conclude that we should make two things clear to the country. First, that we have no intention of abandoning public ownership and accepting for all time the present frontiers of the public sector. Secondly, that we regard public ownership not as an end in itself but as a means—and not necessarily the only or the most important one to certain ends—such as full employment, greater equality and higher productivity. We do not aim to nationalise every private firm or to create an endless series of State monopolies. While we shall certainly wish to extend social ownership, in particular directions, as circumstances warrant, our goal is not 100% State ownership. Our goal is a society in which Socialist ideals are realised. Our job is to move towards this as fast as we can. The pace at which we can go depends on how quickly we can persuade our fellow citizens to back us. They will only do this if we pay proper attention to the kind of people they are and the kind of things they want.
 * Speech to the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool (28 November 1959), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 554

 * [ Clause Four ] lays us open to continual misrepresentation... It implies that we propose to nationalise everything, but do we? Everything?—the whole of light industry, the whole of agriculture, all the shops—every little pub and garage? Of course not. We have long ago come to accept...a mixed economy... [the]... view of 90 per cent of the Labour Party—had we not better say so instead of going out of our way to court misrepresentation?
 * Speech to the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool (28 November 1959), quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell: A Political Biography (1979), p. 554

 * It was on account of the [General] Strike that I first came to know Douglas and Margaret. I had been reading some socialist theory as well as economics—Tawney, the Webbs, Marx (about half of volume i of Das Kapital), J. A. Hobson, Hugh Dalton, but I did not at that time follow day-to-day politics at all closely. Thus for me, as I think for many others, the impact of the Strike was sharp and sudden, a little like a war, in that everybody's lives were suddenly affected by a new unprecedented situation, which forced us to abandon plans for pleasure, to change our values and adjust our priorities. Above all we had to make a choice. And how we chose was a clear test of our political outlook. The vast majority of undergraduates [at Oxford University] went off to unload ships and drive trams or lorries. For me this was out of the question. All my sympathies were instinctively on the side of the miners, the unions, the Labour Party, and the Left generally. It was their cause I wanted to help.
 * "At Oxford in The Twenties", in Asa Briggs and John Saville (eds.), Essays in Labour History: In Memory of G. D. H. Cole (1960; rev. ed. 1967), p. 9

 * For my part, I hold that the central idea of British Socialism is the brotherhood of man. It is this rather than public ownership which surely inspires all our aims in foreign, colonial, social, and economic policies alike. It is this which inspires our protests about Suez and Hola and Cyprus. It is this which is the common link between our hatred of racial discrimination, our opposition to sabre rattling jingoism, our support for a world order and for aid from richer to poorer countries, our belief in social justice and a classless society, our hopes of building a community based on something better than acquisitiveness and rivalry, our respect for the freedom of the individual.
 * Speech to the London group of the Ruskin Fellowship (22 February 1960), quoted in The Times (23 February 1960), p. 12

 * We may lose the vote today, and the result may deal this party a grave blow. It may not be possible to prevent it, but there are some of us, I think many of us, who will not accept that this blow need be mortal: who will not believe that such an end is inevitable. There are some of us who will fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love. We will fight, and fight, and fight again, to bring back sanity and honesty and dignity, so that our party – with its great past – may retain its glory and its greatness.
 * Speech at the Labour Party conference (5 October 1960) in opposition to a motion endorsing unilateral nuclear disarmament.

 * [D]oes [the Prime Minister] realise that it is precisely because of our admirable record in converting a former colonial empire into a free Commonwealth that we ought to welcome and support anti-colonial resolutions in the United Nations, and that to fail to do so inevitably gives the impression that we still support colonialist régimes?
 * Speech in the House of Commons (26 January 1961)

 * Let us not forget that our object here is to try ultimately to bring about full democracy in Northern Rhodesia. We know that that will take a little time. We know that it must involve an acceptance by the white minority themselves of an African State which will be under the control of the African people. We believe that the white minority have an important part to play there, but they must accept the fact that we must get over this hump or past this watershed—whatever the metaphor may be—and that with the pace of events moving as it is in Africa, the time has long since gone when white supremacy can possibly be a viable policy.
 * Speech in the House of Commons (22 February 1961)

 * It can hardly be denied—can it?—that the theory and practice of apartheid—the advocacy of a permanent division of men according to the colour of their skin, and involving, in practice, different rights, opportunities and status—is a continuous affront to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth.
 * Speech in the House of Commons (16 March 1961)

 * [T]he common ideals of racial equality, political freedom, extending the right of self-government to the rest of the Commonwealth, non-aggression in international affairs, economic co-operation, and aid between nations. These ideals may be imperfectly realised in many instances, but, nevertheless, they, and they alone, give the Commonwealth its real justification today, just as the extraordinary variety in terms of geography, race and religion of the Commonwealth provides a wonderful opportunity to advance these ideals in a practical form in the world as a whole.
 * Speech in the House of Commons (22 March 1961)

 * [W]e cannot draw a line between freedom in one place and freedom in another. Freedom, like peace, is indivisible. If we believe in freedom in Hungary, and in East Germany, then we must believe in it in Angola and in Rhodesia. Detention without trial is just as bad whether in Ghana or Hungary or Rhodesia.
 * Speech in the House of Commons (17 October 1961)

 * It is, in my opinion, an utter and complete myth that there is the slightest danger or prospect of millions and millions of brown and black people coming to this country. Anyone who is trying to put that across is only trying to frighten people into believing that. ... We do not believe that the Bill is justified by the facts. We think that probably it will not work at all. But at the same time we think that it will do irreparable harm to the Commonwealth. ... It is a plain anti-Commonwealth measure in theory and it is a plain anti-colour measure in practice.
 * Speech in the House of Commons against the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill (16 November 1961)

 * It has been said that the test of a civilised country is how it treats its Jews. I would extend that and say that the test of a civilised country is how it behaves to all its citizens of different race, religion and colour. By that test this Bill fails, and that is fundamentally why we deplore it. Of course, there are some people who will be glad. I have no doubt that there will be some Fascists who will claim this as the first victory they have ever won. ... I beg the Government now, at this last minute, to drop this miserable, shameful, shabby Bill. Let them think, consult and inquire before they deal another deadly blow at the Commonwealth.
 * Speech in the House of Commons against the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill (16 November 1961)

 * I don't believe in faith. I believe in reason and you have not shown me any.
 * Remarks to Jean Monnet (4 April 1962), who was trying to persuade him of the benefits of the EEC, quoted in Philip Williams, Hugh Gaitskell (1979), p. 708

 * Of course after the conference a desperate attempt was made by Mr. Bonham-Carter to show that of course they weren't committed to federation at all. Well I prefer to go by what Mr. Grimond says; I think he's more important. And when he was asked about this question there was no doubt about his answer; it was on television. And the question was [laughter] I see what you mean, I see what you mean. Yes was the question: "But the mood of your conference today was that Europe should be a federal state. Now if we had to choose between a federal Europe and the Commonwealth, this would have to be a choice wouldn't it? You couldn't have the two." And Mr. Grimond replied in these brilliantly clear sentences: "You could have a Commonwealth linked, though not of course a direct political link, you could have a Commonwealth link of other sorts. But of course a federal Europe I think is a very important point. Now the real thing is that if you are going to have a democratic Europe, if you are going to control the running of Europe democratically, you've got to move towards some form of federalism and if anyone says different to that they're really misleading the public." That's one in the eye for Mr. Bonham-Carter. [laughter] Now we must be clear about this, it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent nation-state. I make no apology for repeating it, the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: "All right let it end." But, my goodness, it's a decision that needs a little care and thought. [clapping] And it does mean the end of the Commonwealth; how can one really seriously suppose that if the mother country, the centre of the Commonwealth, is a province of Europe, which is what federation means, it could continue to exist as the mother country of a series of independent nations; it is sheer nonsense.
 * Speech at the Labour Party Conference (2 October 1962) against the Liberal Party's policy of British membership of the European Communities, quoted in Labour Party Annual Conference Report 1962, p. 159
 * See the video clip here

Quotes about Gaitskell

 * Mr Hugh Gaitskell, who took over from Cripps in the autumn of 1950, probably understood his job better than any Chancellor before or since... His officials had a great respect for him, but they complained that he insisted on doing other people's work for them—a complaint that may simply mean that he wanted to run his own policy.
 * Samuel Brittan, The Treasury Under the Tories, 1951–1964 (1964), p. 155

 * ‘Butskellism’...was, of course, a term compounded by The Economist out of Gaitskell's name and mine. ... [E]ach of us would, I think, have repudiated its underlying assumption that, though sitting on opposite sides of the House, we were really very much of a muchness. I admired him as a man of great humanity and sticking power, and was to regard his untimely death in 1963 as a real loss to the Labour party, to the country and to the tone of public life. But I shared neither his convictions, which were unquenchably Socialist, nor his temperament, which allowed emotion to run away with him rather too often, nor his training which was that of an academic economist. Both of us, it is true, spoke the language of Keynesianism. But we spoke it with different accents and with a differing emphasis.
 * Rab Butler, The Art of the Possible (1971), p. 160

 * He was a man of passion and emotion which he did not often show. He had a deep sense of personal responsibility, a strong sense of duty from which he could not be deflected when he had made up his mind, and a steely will which was a source of his courage... Compromise did not come easily to him although later, when he became Leader of the Party, he recognised the need for accommodation. And in the Shadow Cabinet he would sometimes allow a contrary view to his own view to prevail, letting it pass with a deep, deep sigh at the irrationality of his colleagues. But, on certain issues, notably immigration and the rights of West Indians to come to this country, he was unshakeable, whether his views were popular or not. On all important matters of policy he radiated the assurance that if you and he shared the same beliefs they would be safe in his care and he would not betray them, even if under pressure you yourself weakened. He was therefore a source of strength to his friends and admirers, with a personal kindliness and a sense of fun whenever he relaxed. His loss was a great tragedy. He would have been a strong Prime Minister if he had lived.
 * James Callaghan, Time and Chance (1987), p. 113

 * Like many others, I admired his exceptional qualities of honesty and courage. They were to cause him trouble during his leadership, especially his determination to change the Party's constitution on public ownership and his bitter fight against unilateral disarmament. But by the time of his death he was leading a united Party that seemed poised for victory at the approaching general election. I am sometimes asked what kind of Prime Minister he would have been... his penetrating and informed mind would have shown itself in a clear vision of the direction in which he wanted to take a socialist Britain. He had formed strong views about equal opportunity and abhorred racialism, and he possessed a passionate belief in Britain's future... His deep sense of Britain's history and greatness would have led him as Prime Minister to offer a strong lead on world issues. He was pro-Europe but anti-Common Market because, like others among us, he was a strong believer in the Atlantic Alliance. And he cared deeply about the Commonwealth. Perhaps, had he lived to see our former colonial territories in the Commonwealth forming other alliances and in the process growing away from Britain, together with our lessening importance in the eyes of the United States, he might have changed his mind about membership of the European Community.
 * James Callaghan, Time and Chance (1987), pp. 149-150

 * Whether he was a sufficiently radical leader for a left-wing party is another question. But he was a leader. You had complete confidence in him. You trusted him. You knew absolutely where you were with him, and of how many other politicians in Britain at the moment could you say the same? Most of the others are dwarfs and pygmies beside him ... My last thought of this man is of his huge vitality, because he was immensely vital, he was as strong as an ox, he was as gay as a child, and it simply seems to me wrong that now he should be dead.
 * Anthony Crosland, television tribute to Gaitskell (18 January 1963), quoted in Susan Crosland, Tony Crosland (1982), p. 113

 * Hugh's policy on the nuclear deterrent was clear. He said the independent nuclear deterrent was absolute nonsense. We could neither afford it nor was it necessary to make it ourselves.
 * Dora Gaitskell, speech in Hendon (12 October 1964), quoted in The Times (13 October 1964), p. 17

 * Once he made up his mind there no was calculation of the consequences to himself... Integrity, absolute integrity, this was the essential quality of Hugh Gaitskell's character... He knew...that Clause Four was an article of faith to me and my generation. When I reminded him of this he replied sternly: "Maybe, but you know that we do not intend, any of us, to implement Clause Four fully, and I regarded it as my duty to say so to the party and the country." When he considered it was his duty to say or do something nothing could change him. The sharp edge of intellectual integrity would cut through all barriers.
 * Jim Griffiths, Pages from Memory (1969), p. 135

 * He had the best political manners of anyone I have known and they flowed from deep conviction and a thoroughly generous nature. He kept the level of political discussion very high.
 * Jo Grimond, speech in the House of Commons (22 January 1963)

 * I was worried by a streak of intolerance in Gaitskell's nature; he tended to believe that no one could disagree with him unless they were either knaves or fools. Rejecting Dean Rusk's advice, he would insist on arguing to a conclusion rather than to a decision. ... Gaitskell took my views on foreign policy seriously. I think I helped to form his position on Suez, the Common Market, Russia, and the atomic bomb. Most of his Godkin lecture on disengagement was written by me. If he had become Prime Minister I would probably have become his Foreign Secretary, after Harold Wilson had held the job for a year or two; and he told close friends that he thought I would be the best person to succeed him as Party leader. Nevertheless, I have always doubted whether the fierce puritanism of his intellectual convictions would have enabled him to run a Labour Government for long, without imposing intolerable strains on so anarchic a Labour movement.
 * Denis Healey, The Time of My Life (1990), p. 154

 * His humanism, his respect for other people's enjoyment of life, his civilized egalitarianism, made him deeply suspicious of those who preferred slogans to power. ... [H]is attitude on this [the EEC] or on anything else was never one of uncomprehending insularity. It was India, not Little Englandism, which fought in his breast with European social democracy. ... He saw the world, and particularly the Western community, as interdependent; and he saw the great responsibility on this fortunate segment to try to ameliorate the grinding poverty of the poor two-thirds. His devotion to racial equality was absolute.
 * Roy Jenkins, speech in the Middle Temple Hall at a meeting to commemorate the tenth anniversary of Gaitskell's death (15 January 1973), quoted in The Times (16 January 1973), p. 2

 * He would not have been a perfect Prime Minister. He was stubborn, rash, and could in a paradoxical way become too emotionally committed to an over-rational position which, once he had thought it rigorously through, he believed must be the final answer. He was only a moderately good judge of people. Yet when these faults are put in the scales and weighed against his qualities they shrivel away. He had purpose and direction, courage and humanity. He was a man for raising the sights of politics. He clashed on great issues. He avoided the petty bitterness of personal jealously. He could raise banners which men were proud to follow, but he never perverted his own leadership ability: it was infused by sense and humour, and by a desire to change the world, not for his own satisfaction, but so that people might more enjoy living in it. ... He was that very rare phenomenon, a great politician who was also an unusually agreeable man.
 * Roy Jenkins, 'Gaitskell: how he fought and fought and fought again', The Times (20 January 1973), p. 14

 * This does not mean that Hugh Gaitskell, who would have been nearly seventy-five when the SDP was formed, would have left the Labour Party. I do not personally believe he would have done so, if for no other reason than, had he lived, I suspect the need for a creation of the SDP would never have existed.
 * David Owen, Gaitskell Memorial Lecture at Nottingham University (1985), quoted in David Owen, Time to Declare (1991), p. 56

 * I soon came to regard Hugh Gaitskell...as an outstanding man. His fight against the unilateralists made a deep impression on me. The whole stand against CND within the Labour Party with his famous 'Fight, and fight again' speech made me think: 'This man has principles'.
 * David Owen, Personally Speaking to Kenneth Harris (1987), p. 23

 * When facing some of the more difficult choices of my career, I have asked myself how would Hugh Gaitskell have handled a similar situation.
 * David Owen, Time to Declare (1991), p. 56

 * One of the greatest if more intangible achievements of the late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell was to raise the whole level of political discourse in Britain.
 * Norman St John-Stevas, letter to The Times (11 August 1964), p. 7

 * Political integrity was the most precious quality which Hugh Gaitskell brought to the service of the Labour movement. ... In particular it endowed him with the courage to master the crisis which came to him in October, 1960, when the party conference rejected the official policy on defence and declared for the unilateral renunciation of nuclear weapons. His resolve "to fight and fight and fight again", to rescue the movement from what he deemed to be perilous courses awoke sharp conflict within it, offering a serious challenge to his leadership. He emerged from the struggle with his authority unassailably established within a party to which he had restored cohesion and confidence. The drift to disintegration was halted. His skill and patience were rewarded by the steady reversal of the unilateralist trend... The climax came at the 1961 party conference. The earlier decision was overturned by almost a ten-fold majority, a victorious testimony to the transformation which Gaitskell had wrought. In the process he had immensely enhanced his reputation and had made a powerful impact on the public consciousness as a man possessing the authentic attributes of leadership—resolute will, robust courage, resilient spirit and wise judgment.
 * 'Mr. Hugh Gaitskell', The Times (19 January 1963), p. 12

 * Hugh Gaitskell was that rare creature, a passionate intellectual. Rationality was his creed. His limited patience was strained almost beyond endurance by the the stolid prejudices of the trades union leaders he depended upon, and the colourful sophistries of his left-wing critics. Born in India of Civil Service parents, he was as much a liberal as a socialist. He cherished liberty, detested racism, and believed in the redistribution of income and wealth to achieve social justice. He was never attracted to the European Community, for as a political entity it threatened to eclipse the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth embodied Gaitskell's deepest convictions, including internationalism and interracialism, and it had developed out of Britain's imperial history with which his family had had close connections.
 * Shirley Williams, Climbing the Bookshelves (2009), pp. 135–136

 * Nye called Hugh “a desiccated calculating machine”, thinking him cold and unemotional. It was a serous misjudgement, which proved Nye's undoing. Hugh was passionate in the cause of reason. He loved the Labour Party and wanted to make it something like the German Social Democratic Party was then: free of ideological bitterness and hatred, strong for prosperity and justice and equality, the determined but moderate natural party of government which Harold Wilson foolishly thought he had achieved while actually destroying it.
 * Woodrow Wyatt, Confessions of an Optimist (1987), p. 224

title: Hugh Gaitskell


text:
Rainbow Brite

Rainbow Brite (1984-1986) was a cartoon based on a Hallmark greeting card series featuring its namesake character, produced by DiC Entertainment.

Rainbow Brite

 * It's time for spring, Stormy! Things have to happen when it's time.
 * Hey, Glumface, next time there's a rainbow look up! You'll feel better and you might see me too.
 * I wish I could, Canary, but I have to go and spread color on Earth. Bye!
 * Oh No!!
 * i'm going in there to save her even if it costs me my power!

Lurky

 * Colors are pretty!
 * I'm coming, Murky!

Murky

 * Faster Lurky Faster!
 * Come back you despicable rainbow girlies!
 * You're not goin' anywhere, girlie! Ah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!
 * When I'm finished there won't be any Rainbow Land or Rainbows! Now to put my plan into action.
 * Not now, Banana-Brain!
 * You shaddep.
 * (to Starlite) You'll never catch me!

Moonglow

 * what a night!

Starlite

 * but you'll be powerless. if he sees you...

External link

 * IMDb: Rainbow Brite

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

title: Rainbow Brite


text:
User talk:Apodixis

-- Jaxl 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Apodixis


text:
Bangalore

Bangalore is the capital city of the Indian state of Karnataka. Located on the Deccan Plateau in the south-eastern part of Karnataka. Bangalore is India's third most populous city and fifth-most populous urban agglomeration. Bangalore is known as the Silicon Valley of India because of its role as the nation's leading Information Technology (IT) exporter. Located at a height of over 3,000 feet (914.4 m) above sea level, Bangalore is known for its pleasant climate throughout the year.

A succession of South Indian dynasties, the Western Gangas, the Cholas, and the Hoysalas ruled the present region of Bangalore until in 1537 CE, Kempé Gowdā — a feudatory ruler under the Vijayanagara Empire — established a mud fort considered to be the foundation of modern Bangalore. Following transitory occupation by the Marāthās and Mughals, the city remained under the Mysore Kingdom. It later passed into the hands of Hyder Ali and his son Tipu Sultan, and was captured by the British after victory in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1799), who returned administrative control of the city to the Maharaja of Mysore. The old city developed in the dominions of the Maharaja of Mysore, and was made capital of the Princely State of Mysore, which existed as a nominally sovereign entity of the British Raj. In 1809, the British shifted their cantonment to Bangalore, outside the old city, and a town grew up around it, which was governed as part of British India. Following India's independence in 1947, Bangalore became the capital of Mysore State, and remained capital when the new Indian state of Karnataka was formed in 1956. The two urban settlements of Bangalore – City and Cantonment – which had developed as independent entities merged into a single urban centre in 1949. The city was renamed Bengaluru in 2006.

Quotes

 * Bangalore is known especially for its beautiful parks, wide avenues, busy bazaars, and pleasant climate. It’s a thousand meters above sea level and usually feels somewhat cooler than most South Indian cities, even in midsummer. Most of the city is rather modern, especially around Kumpegowda Circle and along Gandhi Nagar and Chickpet streets. In fact, it’s the second most westernized city in India, next to Mumbai, with a population of more than 4,000,000. But not far away is the old part of town around Sri Narsimharaja Road, and farther south is where you can get a feel for the earlier culture of the area. The streets there are narrow and winding, and the older temples and cottage industries and historical landmarks are also there.
 * Knapp Stephen, Spiritual India Handbook (2011)

 * It was somewhere between the interview with the Indian entrepreneur who wanted to do my taxes from Bangalore and the one who wanted to write my software from Bangalore, and the one who wanted to read my x-rays from Bangalore, and the one who wanted to trace my lost luggage from Bangalore...I was realizing that, while I had been sleeping, while I had been off covering the 9/11 wars, I had missed something really fundamental in this globalization story. I had lost the thread, and I found it in Bangalore.
 * Thomas Friedman, "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century".

 * Bangalore is a brand the world identifies India with. It is also the single biggest reason why India has become such a hot investment destination.
 * Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India. Union Budget 2005-2006, 12 Feb. 2006
 * The city's main activity is Information technology and information technology-enabled services. Being the leading contributor to India's IT industry, it has been dubbed the Silicon Valley of India.
 * Rediff Business Desk, in India's hottest IT destinations]

 * A recent study also revealed that the rupee millionaire club in Karnataka's capital is the largest in India.
 * Rediff Business Desk, in "India's hottest IT destinations".

 * Bengaluru also boasts of having the largest number of households with an annual income of Rs 10 lakh (Rs 1 million) or more.
 * Rediff Business Desk, in "India's hottest IT destinations".

title: Bangalore


text:
Talk:Sexuality

whats with that "I like it when people have sex with me any time" attributed to anonymous. That doesn't seem very noteworthy 172.184.71.225 06:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mae West added. How can this page NOT have Mae on it?! Jmacwiki 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

 * Published sources should be provided before moving these back into the article

 * Give more than you take in sex, to feel euphoria

 * Sex is like math: you add the bed, subtract the clothes, divide the legs and pray you don't multiply!
 * Feras Yaghmour

 * Music is like Vodka, You can mix it with almost everything; a dinner, a dance, or sex.
 * Feras Yaghmour

 * Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right.
 * Woody Allen

 * Don't knock masturbation. That's sex with someone I love.
 * Woody Allen

 * Sex is an emotion in motion.
 * Mae West

 * My family never raised me to have a vagina.
 * Roseanne

 * An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.
 * Aldous Huxley

 * Did you ever notice the people who are most adamantly against abortions are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?
 * George Carlin

 * From the perspective of scripting theory, same-gender erotic preferences are elicited and shaped by the systems of meaning offered for conduct in a culture. What is usually construed as culture against "man" or culture against nature is thus actually conflict among differently enculturated individuals or groups. What is required is a constant recognition that acts of usage and explanation are acts of social control in the strong sense, that "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are names that have been imposed on some persons and their conduct by other persons - and that this imposition has carried the right of the latter to tell the former the origins, meaning, and virtue of their conduct.
 * John Gagnon

 * Great sex is great, but bad sex is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
 * Billy Joel

 * Just fuck and fuck the consequences
 * Ryan Hare

 * ...if you are fat, no matter what you wear, nothing is going to make you sexier.
 * Steve Austin

 * In lieu of creativity, there is an undue emphasis on sexuality.
 * Jay Christian Emerte

 * Insistence on having a sexual orientation in sex is about defending the status quo, maintaining sex differences and the sexual hierarchy; whereas resistance to sexual orientation, regimentation is more about where we need to be going.
 * John Stoltenberg (1989)

 * Institutionalised in sports, the military, acculturated sexuality, the history and mythology of heroism, violence is taught to boys until they become its advocates.
 * Charles Dickens

 * Of the delights of this world man cares most for sexual intercourse, yet he has left it out of his heaven.
 * Mark Twain

 * One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other.
 * Jane Austen

 * Our sexual self is a complex combination of our social, cultural, and biological inheritance.
 * Pepper Schwartz

 * Sex concentrates on what is on the outside of the individual. It's funny because I think it's better inside.
 * Alex Walsh

 * Sex is one of the 9 reasons for reincarnation, the other 8 are unimportant.
 * Henry Miller

 * Sexuality is the lyricism of the masses.
 * Charles Baudelaire

 * We're trained to see only male or female and to plot people into those categories when they actually don't fit neatly at all. But if we pause, watch and listen closely we'll see the multiplicity of ways in which people are sexed and gendered. There exists a range of personal identifications around woman, man, in-between--we don't even have names or pronouns that reflect that in between place but people certainly live in it.
 * Minnie Bruce Pratt
 * When a man goes on a date, he wonders if he is going to get lucky. A woman already knows.
 * Frederike Ryder

 * When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.
 * Friedrich Nietzsche

 * Girls are like catalysts, they just speed up the reactions of lives of boys either in a positive way or in a negative way.
 * Madapathi Srinath

 * The problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time
 * Robin Williams
 * Sex COULD kill you. Do you know what the human body goes through when you have sex? Pupils dilate, arteries constrict, core temperature rises, heart races, blood pressure skyrockets, respiration becomes rapid and shallow, the brain fires bursts of electrical impulses from nowhere to nowhere, and secretions spit out of every gland, and the muscles tense and spasm like you're lifting three times your body weight. It's violent. It's ugly. And it's messy. And if God hadn't made it unbelievably fun, the human race would have died out eons ago.
 * House, Dr. Allison Cameron (Jennifer Morrison)

 * Sex is a lot like pizza, when it's good, it's really good; when it's bad, it's still kinda good.
 * Brandon Lyon

 * Sex is boring unless you're doing it.
 * Ridley Scott

Alan Moore "Dark Ages and Holocaust"
The Alan Moore quote is rather bad. I wouldn't mind it being on here except that it's in bold and there are so few quotes on the page in general, which gives it an exaggerated importance. It is not counterbalanced by nuanced expert opinion. To call Athens "sexually permissive" relies on an anachronistic assumption that the presence or toleration of homosexuality is evidence of permissiveness. This itself is a Christian holdover. In another culture homosexual relations can be a part of their cultural conservatism. Athenians had all kinds of regulations and taboos surrounding sex - feminine sexuality especially was strictly suppressed and regulated. It was partly liberation from male sexuality that made Christian sexual ethics so appealing to women in late Roman antiquity. That the quote evokes the Dark Ages meme is another problem: especially egregious is the assumption that the "repressed" Christian world contributed nothing in the way of mathematics, philosophy, etc. Why exactly is it bolded? It may be a good representation of lay prejudices, but not historical consensus. Maskettaman (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 * I believe the quote is memorable enough for this page (it could also be moved to a subpage), but I agree that there is no reason to bold it. Quotes do not have to be factual, often quotes are more about opinions than about real, hard facts. I have removed the bolding. -- ო ~ #SheSaid 16:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

authors: დამოკიდებულება

title: Talk:Sexuality


text:
Kim Wilde

Kim Wilde (born 18 November, 1960) British singer, songwriter and garden designer.

Teases and Dares (1984)

 * I'm spending nights just dreaming / And playing the music loud / They're banging on the ceiling / They're praying that I'll soon be out.
 * Fit in

 * Is our time up and on to the next fire / Got my fingers burnt and cut into the wire.
 * Shangri-la

Another step (1986)

 * There is sadness and confusion in our hearts / And the world prepares to fight / as it tears itself apart, it isn't fair
 * Schoolgirl

Close (1988)

 * I watch you sleep in the still of the night / You look so pretty when you dream / So many people just go through life / Holding back, they don't say what they mean / But it's easy for me / Since you came
 * You came

 * When love's the culmination / of everything you feel / then it's the only thing that's precious / it's the only thing that's real
 * Love in the natural way

 * You can't close your eyes to the lies perpetrated by dangerous fools / 'cos they're handing out rules
 * Stone

 * They're still building and testing / But what can we do / Condemning the seas and the land and the trees to a tomb
 * Stone

Love moves (1990)

 * You can spend your life competing in a world that talks too loud / You can lose your own direction getting lost among the crowd / Confusion - is it any wonder that the road ahead's not clear / Well you can try too hard to find it now I realise it's here
 * It's here

 * Don't let your dreams escape / The future's ours to shape
 * World in perfect harmony

 * And while we destroy / Our children will grow / Not missing the things they'll never know / A crime against them / Against you and me / A crime against all humanity
 * Who's to blame

Love is (1992)

 * Snap your fingers and somebody runs / You don't care how they feel just as long as they come / Got your head in the stars now you've come this far / Just who do you think you are?
 * Who do you think you are?

Now & Forever (1995)

 * In the day I can smile though I wanna die / Hold on, hold on / I can keep it together for a little while / and be strong, so strong / But when the sun goes down and I'm all alone / I haven't the strength to fight / That's when my tears give in to the night
 * Hold on

Interviews

 * Do you think that you're beautiful? Inside or outside? Mmmmm... outside I don't think about that too much because I realise that's all very superficial. I'm more concerned about inside, and inside I think I'm alright... I'm OK inside. I don't think I'm perfect and I don't call myself beautiful but I'm definitely not ugly inside. I've got friends who aren't that so called pleasant to look at but inside I think they're beautiful.
 * [http://www.kimwilde.com/articles/1981/00244/ New Musical Express (19 September 1981)

 * I think that not being loved by your parents or not having a brother or not being liked at school or even wearing glasses can be a lot worse than having a famous father.
 * The Face (March 1982)

 * Being blonde now doesn't mean Marilyn Monroe vulnerability. Blonde in the Eighties means being in control.
 * Clothes Show magazine (March 1989)

 * Gardening is not something to get on your high horse about or be overwhelmed by. Either you enjoy it or you don't.
 * Daily Telegraph (31 December 1999)

About Wilde

 * With female singers being plucked from their cradles our Kim is almost a geriatric in pop terms. God knows how many times she's been written off, and then bounced back stronger and slicker than ever. This latest album is proof that Kim will still be around when her rivals are fighting it out in the bargain bins.
 * Anne Lambert in unknown UK magazine, 1988.

= External links=

 * kimwilde.com
 * kimwildetv.com
 * kim-wilde.co.uk

title: Kim Wilde


text:
Pauline Kael

Pauline Kael (June 19, 1919 – September 3, 2001) was an American film critic best remembered for the reviews she wrote for The New Yorker. Collections of her reviews were later published in book form.

Quotes

 * Object to the Hollywood film and you’re an intellectual snob, object to the avant-garde films and you’re a Philistine. But, while in Hollywood, one must often be a snob; in avant-garde circles one must often be a Philistine.
 * "Movies, the Desperate Art" (1956)
 * I regard criticism as an art, and if in this country and in this age it is practiced with honesty, it is no more remunerative than the work of an avant-garde film artist. My dear anonymous letter writers, if you think it is so easy to be a critic, so difficult to be a poet or a painter or film experimenter, may I suggest you try both? You may discover why there are so few critics, so many poets.
 * "Replying to Listeners", broadcast on KPFA (January 1963).

 * Regrettably, one of the surest signs of the Philistine is his reverence for the superior tastes of those who put him down.
 * A mistake in judgment isn't fatal, but too much anxiety about judgment is.
 * "Zeitgeist and Poltergeist; or, Are Movies Going to Pieces?" (December 1964), from I Lost It at the Movies (1965).

 * Citizen Kane is perhaps the one American talking picture that seems as fresh now as the day it opened. It may seem even fresher.
 * "Raising Kane", The New Yorker (February 20, 1971 and February 27, 1971); reprinted in Kael's The Citizen Kane Book (1971).

 * October 14, 1972: that date should become a landmark in movie history comparable to May 29, 1913 — the night Le Sacre du Printemps was first performed — in music history. There was no riot, and no one threw anything at the screen, but I think it’s fair to say that the audience was in a state of shock, because Last Tango in Paris has the same kind of hypnotic excitement as the Sacre, the same primitive force, and the same thrusting, jabbing eroticism. [...] Bertolucci and Brando have altered the face of an art form. Who was prepared for that?
 * From "The Current Cinema". The New Yorker. October 28, 1972.

 * I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them.
 * Quoted by Israel Shenker, "Critics Here Focus on Films As Language Conference Opens," The New York Times (December 28, 1972)
 * Often quoted as "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him"; referring to George McGovern's loss to Richard Nixon in in the 1972 presidential election.

 * In the arts, the critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.
 * Newsweek (December 24, 1973).

 * A woman who taught at Berkeley dropped in on me once and saw a book burning in the fireplace. She pointed at it in terror, and I explained that it was a crummy ghostwritten life of a movie star and that it was an act of sanitation to burn it rather than sending it out into the world which was already clogged with too many copies of it. But she said, "You shouldn’t burn books" and began to cry.
 * The New Republic (December 24, 1966)

 * Before seeing Truffaut's Small Change, I was afraid it was going to be one of those simple, natural films about childhood which I generally try to avoid — I'm just not good enough to go to them. But this series of sketches on the general theme of the resilience of children turns out to be that rarity — a poetic comedy that's really funny.
 * Review of Small Change, from When The Lights Go Down (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980, ISBN 0-030-42511-5 ).

 * I loved writing about things when I was excited about them. It's not fun writing about bad movies. I used to think it was bad for my skin. It's painful writing about the bad things in an art form, particularly when young kids are going to be enthusiastic about those things, because they haven't seen anything better, or anything different.
 * Quoted in Francis Davis, Afterglow: A Last Conversation with Pauline Kael (Da Capo, 2003, ISBN 0-306-81230-4 ).

 * After one of those terrible lovers' quarrels that leave one in a state of incomprehensible despair. I came out of the theater, tears streaming, and overheard the petulant voice of a college girl complaining to her boyfriend, "Well I don't see what was so special about that movie." I walked up the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine. For if people cannot feel Shoeshine, what can they feel?... Later I learned that the man with whom I had quarreled had gone the same night and had also emerged in tears. Yet our tears for each other, and for Shoeshine did not bring us together. Life, as Shoeshine demonstrates, is too complex for facile endings.
 * Review for Shoeshine (1946) as quoted in Sontag & Kael: Opposites Attract Me (2004) by Craig Seligman.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (1968)
[Little, Brown ISBN 0-316-48163-7]

 * The words "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," which I saw on an Italian movie poster, are perhaps the briefest statement imaginable of the basic appeal of movies. This appeal is what attracts us, and ultimately what makes us despair when we begin to understand how seldom movies are more than this.
 * "A Note on the Title".

 * Watching old movies is like spending an evening with those people next door. They bore us, and we wouldn't go out of our way to see them; we drop in on them because they're so close. If it took some effort to see old movies, we might try to find out which were the good ones, and if people saw only the good ones maybe they would still respect old movies. As it is, people sit and watch movies that audiences walked out on thirty years ago. Like Lot's wife, we are tempted to take another look, attracted not by evil but by something that seems much more shameful — our own innocence.
 * "Movies on Television".

 * The past has a terror and fascination and a beauty beyond almost anything else. We are looking at the dead, and they move and grin and wave at us; it's an almost unbearable experience. When our wonder or our grief are interrupted or followed by a commercial, we want to destroy the ugly box. Old movies don't tear us apart like that. They do something else, which we can take more of and take more easily; they give us a sense of the passage of life. Here is Elizabeth Taylor as a plump matron and here, an hour later, as an exquisite child.
 * "Movies on Television"

Going Steady (1969)
[Marion Boyars, ISBN 0-714-52976-1]

Trash, Art and the Movies (February 1969)
See the essay in its entirety here

 * Alienation is the most common state of the knowledgeable movie audience, and though it has the peculiar rewards of low connoisseurship, a miser’s delight in small favors, we long to be surprised out of it — not to suspension of disbelief nor to a Brechtian kind of alienation, but to pleasure, something a man can call good without self-disgust.

 * Audiences who have been forced to wade through the thick middle-class padding of more expensively made movies to get to the action enjoy the nose-thumbing at "good taste" of cheap movies that stick to the raw materials. At some basic level they like the pictures to be cheaply done, they enjoy the crudeness; it’s a breather, a vacation from proper behavior and good taste and required responses. Patrons of burlesque applaud politely for the graceful erotic dancer but go wild for the lewd lummox who bangs her big hips around. That’s what they go to burlesque for.

 * Movies make hash of the schoolmarm’s approach of how well the artist fulfilled his intentions. Whatever the original intention of the writers and director, it is usually supplanted, as the production gets under way, by the intention to make money — and the industry judges the film by how well it fulfills that intention. But if you could see the "artist’s intentions" you’d probably wish you couldn’t anyway. Nothing is so deathly to enjoyment as the relentless march of a movie to fulfill its obvious purpose. This is, indeed, almost a defining characteristic of the hack director, as distinguished from an artist.
 * People who are just getting "seriously interested" in film always ask a critic, "Why don’t you talk about technique and 'the visuals' more?" The answer is that American movie technique is generally more like technology and it usually isn’t very interesting.

 * The craftsmanship that Hollywood has always used as a selling point not only doesn’t have much to do with art — the expressive use of techniques — it probably doesn’t have very much to do with actual box-office appeal, either.

 * Men are now beginning their careers as directors by working on commercials — which, if one cares to speculate on it, may be almost a one-sentence résumé of the future of American motion pictures.

 * And for the greatest movie artists where there is a unity of technique and subject, one doesn’t need to talk about technique much because it has been subsumed in the art. One doesn’t want to talk about how Tolstoi got his effects but about the work itself. One doesn’t want to talk about how Jean Renoir does it; one wants to talk about what he has done. One can try to separate it all out, of course, distinguish form and content for purposes of analysis. But that is a secondary, analytic function, a scholarly function, and hardly needs to be done explicitly in criticism. Taking it apart is far less important than trying to see it whole. The critic shouldn’t need to tear a work apart to demonstrate that he knows how it was put together. The important thing is to convey what is new and beautiful in the work, not how it was made — which is more or less implicit.

 * Irresponsibility is part of the pleasure of all art; it is the part the schools cannot recognize.

 * Kicked in the ribs, the press says "art" when "ouch" would be more appropriate.

 * Movies are so rarely great art, that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we have very little reason to be interested in them.

 * When you clean them up, when you make movies respectable, you kill them. The wellspring of their art, their greatness, is in not being respectable.

 * The small triumph of The Graduate was to have domesticated alienation and the difficulty of communication, by making what Benjamin is alienated from a middle-class comic strip and making it absurdly evident that he has nothing to communicate — which is just what makes him an acceptable hero for the large movie audience. If he said anything or had any ideas, the audience would probably hate him.

 * The recurrence of certain themes in movies suggests that each generation wants romance restated in slightly new terms, and of course it’s one of the pleasures of movies as a popular art that they can answer this need. And yet, and yet — one doesn’t expect an educated generation to be so soft on itself, much softer than the factory workers of the past who didn’t go back over and over to the same movies, mooning away in fixation on themselves and thinking this fixation meant movies had suddenly become an art, and their art.

 * The critical task is necessarily comparative, and younger people do not truly know what is new.

 * One’s moviegoing tastes and habits change — I still like in movies what I always liked but now, for example, I really want documentaries. After all the years of stale stupid acted-out stories, with less and less for me in them, I am desperate to know something, desperate for facts, for information, for faces of non-actors and for knowledge of how people live — for revelations, not for the little bits of show-business detail worked up for us by show-business minds who got them from the same movies we’re tired of.

 * If we make any kind of decent, useful life for ourselves we have less need to run from it to those diminishing pleasures of the movies. When we go to the movies we want something good, something sustained, we don’t want to settle for just a bit of something, because we have other things to do. If life at home is more interesting, why go to the movies? And the theatres frequented by true moviegoers — those perennial displaced persons in each city, the loners and the losers — depress us. Listening to them — and they are often more audible than the sound track — as they cheer the cons and jeer the cops, we may still share their disaffection, but it’s not enough to keep us interested in cops and robbers. A little nose-thumbing isn’t enough. If we’ve grown up at the movies we know that good work is continuous not with the academic, respectable tradition but with the glimpses of something good in trash, but we want the subversive gesture carried to the domain of discovery. Trash has given us an appetite for art.

Deeper into Movies (1973)
[Little, Brown ISBN 0-316-48176-9]

 * At the movies, we are gradually being conditioned to accept violence as a sensual pleasure. The directors used to say they were showing us its real face and how ugly it was in order to sensitize us to its horrors. You don't have to be very keen to see that they are now in fact desensitizing us. They are saying that everyone is brutal, and the heroes must be as brutal as the villains or they turn into fools. There seems to be an assumption that if you're offended by movie brutality, you are somehow playing into the hands of the people who want censorship. But this would deny those of us who don't believe in censorship the use of the only counterbalance: the freedom of the press to say that there's anything conceivably damaging in these films — the freedom to analyze their implications. If we don't use this critical freedom, we are implicitly saying that no brutality is too much for us — that only squares and people who believe in censorship are concerned with brutality. Actually, those who believe in censorship are primarily concerned with sex, and they generally worry about violence only when it's eroticized. This means that practically no one raises the issue of the possible cumulative effects of movie brutality. Yet surely, when night after night atrocities are served up to us as entertainment, it's worth some anxiety. We become clockwork oranges if we accept all this pop culture without asking what's in it. How can people go on talking about the dazzling brilliance of movies and not notice that the directors are sucking up to the thugs in the audience?
 * "Stanley Strangelove" (January 1972), review of A Clockwork Orange

5001 Nights at the Movies (1982)
[Holt, Rinehart and Winston ISBN 003000442X]

 * There is a dreadful discrepancy between Michelangelo's works and the words put into the mouth of Charlton Heston, who represents him here, and this picture — which is mostly about a prolonged wrangle between the sculptor and Pope Julius II (Rex Harrison), who keeps sweeping into the Sistine Chapel and barking, "When will you make an end of it?" — isn't believable for an instant.
 * "The Agony and the Ecstasy," p. 11.

 * Apparently, Lillian Hellman couldn't shake off the predatory Hubbards after The Little Foxes; she wrote this play about the same family, setting it back 30 years earlier in their dark history. The Hubbards, who are supposed to be rising Southern capitalists, are the greatest collection of ghouls since The Old Dark House of 1932. Hellman must combine witchcraft with stagecraft — who else could keep a plot in motion with lost documents, wills, poisonings, and pistols, and still be considered a social thinker?
 * "Another Part of the Forest," p. 30.

 * The happiest screen collaboration of Elsa Lanchester and Charles Laughton — they're both wonderful — is in this adaptation of a Somerset Maugham story, "The Vessel of Wrath." It's set on an island in the Pacific, which Maugham calls Baru, and it's concerned with the efforts of the prim missionary (Lanchester) to reform the carnal, ribald beachcomber (Laughton). The situation is the reverse of that in Maugham's Sadie Thompson story, but with a light, comic tone. The Hepburn-Bogart "African Queen" probably took a few notions from it.
 * "The Beachcomber," p. 56.

 * The action genre has always had a fascist potential, and it surfaces in this movie.
 * "Dirty Harry", p. 191.

 * Hilariously florid — sometimes referred to as "Lust in the Dust." This Wagnerian western features Gregory Peck and Jennifer Jones as lovers so passionate they kill each other. She's Pearl Chavez, a half-breed wench, and so, by Hollywood convention, uncontrollably sexy, and Peck actually manages to bestir himself enough to play a hunk of egotistical hot stuff — maybe the name Lewt McCanles got to him, or maybe the producer, David O. Selznick, used electric prods. Peck clangs his spurs and leers, while Jones heaves her chest; when they kiss, lightning blazes.
 * "Duel in the Sun," p. 206.

 * The slender, swift Bruce Lee was the Fred Astaire of martial arts, and many of the fights that could be merely brutal come across as lightning-fast choreography.
 * "Enter the Dragon," p. 221.

 * Charles Laughton is superbly vulgar in this whack at the backside of Victorianism. He makes a great vaudeville turn out of the role of an egocentric scoundrel, the prosperous bootmaker who doesn't want to part with his three marriageable daughters because they are too useful as unpaid labor. As the oldest daughter, the spinster in spite of herself, Brenda de Banzie is so "right" that when she marries her father's best workman and puts belching, drunken old Dad out of business, one feels the good old-fashioned impulse to applaud.
 * "Hobson's Choice," pp. 335-336.

 * A filmed play like this doesn't offer the sensual enjoyment that movies can offer, but you don't go to it for that; you go for O'Neill's crude, prosaic virtuosity, which is also pure American poetry, and for the kind of cast that rarely gathers for a stage production. [...] Larry, a self-hating alcoholic, is a weak man and a windbag, but Ryan brings so much understanding to Larry's weakness that the play achieves new dimensions. Ryan becomes O'Neill for us; he has O'Neill's famous "tragic handsomeness" and at the end, when Larry is permanently "iced" — that is, stripped of illusion — we can see that this is the author's fantasy of himself [...] Fredric March interprets Harry Hope with so much quiet tenderness that when Harry regains his illusions and we see March's muscles tone up, we don't know whether to smile for the character or the actor.
 * "The Iceman Cometh," pp. 353-354

 * Though she came from the theatre, Barbara Stanwyck seemed to have an intuitive understanding of the fluid physical movements that work best on camera; perhaps she had been an unusually "natural" actress even onstage. This was her first big hit in the movies. Under Frank Capra's direction, she plays a tough "party" girl (euphemism for call girl) who poses for a wealthy young artist (Ralph Graves); he sees in her the spirituality that she attempts to deny. The story is a museum piece of early-talkies sentimentality, but, in a way, that only emphasizes Stanwyck's remarkable modernism.
 * "Ladies of Leisure," p. 403

 * Picasso has a volatile, explosive presence. He seems to take art back to an earlier function, before the centuries of museums and masterpieces; he is the artist as clown, as conjurer, as master funmaker.
 * "Le Mystère Picasso," p. 511.

 * De Mille's bang-them-on-the-head-with-wild-orgies-and-imperilled-virginity style is at its ripest; the film is just about irresistible.
 * "The Sign of the Cross," p. 680.

 * Whom could this operetta offend? Only those of us who, despite the fact that we may respond, loathe being manipulated in this way and are aware of how cheap and ready-made are the responses we are made to feel. We may become even more aware of the way we have been turned into emotional and aesthetic imbeciles when we hear ourselves humming the sickly, goody-goody songs. The dauntless, scrubbed-face heroine (Julie Andrews), in training to become a nun, is sent from the convent to serve as governess to the motherless Von Trapp children, and turns them into a happy little troupe of singers before marrying their father (Christopher Plummer). She says goodbye to the nuns and leaves them outside at the fence, as she enters the cathedral to be married. Squeezed again, and the moisture comes out of thousands--millions--of eyes and noses. Wasn't there perhaps one little Von Trapp who didn't want to sing his head off, or who screamed that he wouldn't act out little glockenspiel routines for Papa's party guests, or who got nervous and threw up if he had to get on a stage? The only thing the director, Robert Wise, couldn't smooth out was the sinister, archly decadent performance by Christopher Plummer--he of the thin, twisted smile; he seems to be in a different movie altogether.
 * "The Sound of Music," p. 697

 * One of the biggest box-office successes in movie history — probably because for young audiences it's like getting a box of Cracker Jack that is all prizes. Written and directed by George Lucas, the film is enjoyable in its own terms, but it's exhausting, too: like taking a pack of kids to the circus. There's no breather in the picture, no lyricism; the only attempt at beauty is in the image of a double sunset. The loudness, the smash-and-grab editing, and the relentless pacing drive every idea out of your head, and even if you've been entertained, you may feel cheated of some dimension — a sense of wonder, perhaps. It's an epic without a dream.
 * "Star Wars," p. 714.

 * De Niro's inflamed, brimming eyes are the focal point of the compositions. He's Travis Bickle, an outsider who can't find any point of entry into human society. He drives nights because he can't sleep anyway; surrounded by the night world of the uprooted — whores, pimps, transients — he hates New York with a Biblical fury, and its filth and smut obsess him. This ferociously powerful film is like a raw, tabloid version of Notes from the Underground. Martin Scorsese achieves the quality of trance in some scenes, and the whole movie has a sense of vertigo. The cinematographer, Michael Chapman, gives the street life a seamy, rich pulpiness.
 * "Taxi Driver," pp. 744-745.

 * [T]his film offers a nightmare image: the "Black Rebels," an outlaw motorcycle gang — a leather-jacketed pack who resemble storm troopers — terrorize a town. Their emblem is a death's head and crossed pistons and rods, and Marlon Brando, in his magnetic, soft-eyed youth, is their moody leader. The picture seemed to be frightened of its subject — the young nihilists who say "no" to American blandness and conformity — and reduced it as quickly as possible to the trivial meaninglessness of misunderstood boy meets understanding girl (Mary Murphy), but the audience savored the possibilities, and this clumsy, naive film was banned and argued about in so many countries that it developed a near-legendary status.
 * "The Wild One," p. 838.

Taking It All In (1983)
[Holt, Rinehart and Winston, ISBN 0030693616]

"Why Are Movies So Bad? Or, The Numbers" (June 23, 1980)
See the essay in its entirety here

 * TV executives think that the programs with the highest ratings are what TV viewers want, rather than what they settle for.

 * The conglomerate heads may be business geniuses, but as far as movies are concerned they have virgin instincts; ideas that are new to them and take them by storm may have failed grotesquely dozens of times. But they feel that they are creative people — how else could they have made so much money and be in a position to advise artists what to do? Who is to tell them no?

 * In movies, the balance between art and business has always been precarious, with business outweighing art, but the business was, at least, in the hands of businessmen who loved movies. As popular entertainment, movies need something of what the vulgarian moguls had — zest, a belief in their own instincts, a sentimental dedication to producing pictures that would make their country proud of their contribution, a respect for quality, and the biggest thing: a willingness to take chances. The cool managerial sharks don’t have that; neither do the academics. But the vulgarians also did more than their share of damage, and they’re gone forever anyway. They were part of a different America. They were, more often than not, men who paid only lip service to high ideals, while gouging everyone for profits. The big change in the country is reflected in the fact that people in the movie business no longer feel it necessary to talk about principles at all.

 * People have expected less of movies and have been willing to settle for less. Some have even been willing to settle for Kramer vs. Kramer and other pictures that seem to be made for an audience of over-age flower children. These pictures express the belief that if a man cares about anything besides being at home with the kids, he’s corrupt. Parenting ennobles Dustin Hoffman and makes him a better person in every way, while in The Seduction of Joe Tynan we can see that Alan Alda is a weak, corruptible fellow because he wants to be President of the United States more than he wants to stay at home communing with his daughter about her adolescent miseries. Pictures like these should all end with the fathers and the children sitting at home watching TV together.

 * It would be very convincing to say that there’s no hope for movies — that audiences have been so corrupted by television and have become so jaded that all they want are noisy thrills and dumb jokes and images that move along in an undemanding way, so they can sit and react at the simplest motor level. And there’s plenty of evidence, such as the success of Alien. This was a haunted-house-with-gorilla picture set in outer space. It reached out, grabbed you, and squeezed your stomach; it was more gripping than entertaining, but a lot of people didn’t mind. They thought it was terrific, because at least they’d felt something: they’d been brutalized. It was like an entertainment contrived in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World by the Professor of Feelies in the College of Emotional Engineering.

State of the Art (1985)
[Dutton, ISBN 0-525-48186-9]

 * In the sixties, the recycling of pop culture — turning it into Pop art and camp — had its own satirical zest. Now we're into a different kind of recycling. Moviemakers give movies of the past an authority that those movies didn't have; they inflate images that may never have compelled belief, images that were no more than shorthand gestures — and they use them not as larger-than-life jokes but as altars.
 * "A Bad Dream/A Masterpiece," review of The Moon in the Gutter (September 19, 1983), p. 48.

 * Unlike storybook heroes and heroines but like many actual heroes and heroines, she was something of a social outcast. (As Simone Weil noted, it was the people with irregular and embarrassing histories who were often the heroes of the Resistance in the Second World War; the proper middle-class people may have felt they had too much to lose.)
 * "Busybody," review of Silkwood (January 9, 1984), p. 107.

 * If I never saw another fistfight or car chase or Doberman attack, I wouldn't have any feeling of loss. And that goes for Rottweilers, too.
 * "King Candy," review of Against All Odds (March 19, 1984), p. 145.

 * It tackles a wonderful subject without preening, and brings it off unassertively — so unassertively that the movie is in danger of being overlooked. (Variety has already dismissed it as something "for a very limited audience.") We're getting to the point where the press assumes that movie audiences won't be willing to bring anything to a picture, and warns them off.
 * "Circus," review of Moscow on the Hudson (April 16, 1984), p. 160.

 * Since I have an aversion to movies in which people say grace at the dinner table (not to the practice but to how movies use it to establish the moral strength of a household), the opening night montage of Sunday-night supper in one home after another in Waxahachie, Texas in 1935 — a whole community saying grace — made me expect the worst.
 * "Mirrors," review of Places in the Heart (October 15, 1984), p. 246.

Hooked (1989)
[Dutton, ISBN 0-525-48429-9]

 * What's disgusting about the Dirty Harry movies is that Eastwood plays this angry tension as righteous indignation.
 * "Pop Mystics," review of Pale Rider (August 12, 1985), p. 17.

 * Is there something in druggy subjects that encourages directors to make imitation film noir? Film noir itself becomes an addiction.
 * "Drifters, Dopes and Dopers," review of 8 Million Ways to Die (May 19, 1986), p. 156.

 * If there is any test that can be applied to movies, it's that the good ones never make you feel virtuous.
 * "Ersatz," review of Stand By Me (September 8, 1986), p. 197.

Movie Love (1991)
[Penguin, ISBN 0-452-26635-1]

 * It's as if Brian de Palma were saying, "What is getting older if it isn't learning more ways that you're vulnerable?"
 * Review of Casualties of War, p. 176.

 * Moviegoers like to believe that those they have made stars are great actors. People used to say that Gary Cooper was a fine actor — probably because when they looked in his face they were ready to give him their power of attorney.
 * "Potency," review of Born on the Fourth of July January 22, 1990), p. 254.

 * This is a nature-boy movie, a kid's daydream of being an Indian. When Dunbar has become a Sioux named Dances with Wolves, he writes in his journal that he knows for the first time who he really is. Costner has feathers in his hair and feathers in his head.
 * "New Age Daydreams," review of Dances with Wolves (December 17, 1990), p. 295.

Interviews

 * If you can't make fun of bad movies on serious subjects, what's the point?
 * Interview with Hal Espen, The New Yorker (March 21, 1994); reprinted in Espen's Conversations with Pauline Kael (University of Mississippi Press, 1996, ISBN 0-878-05899-0 ), p. 162.

 * Goodman: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Kael: I hate it. It is very creepy being imitated.
 * Interview with Susan Goodman, Modern Maturity (March/April 1998).

 * Earlier generations went to see what was forbidden in life and developed a real excitement about the movies. Today’s rating system keeps kids out of the good ones. I wouldn’t want them to see movies like Natural Born Killers, but my tendency is you’re better off seeing things than not. That glazed indifference kids develop can be worse than over-excitement.
 * Interview with Susan Goodman, Modern Maturity (March/April 1998).

 * Moviemaking is so male-dominated now that they think they’re being pro-feminine when they have women punching each other out.
 * Interview with Susan Goodman, Modern Maturity (March/April 1998).

 * It's sometimes discouraging to see all of a director's movies, because there's so much repetition. The auteurists took this to be a sign of a director's artistry, that you could recognize his movies. But it can also be a sign that he's a hack.
 * "The Perils of Being Pauline", interview with Francis Davis, The New Yorker (October 2001).

 * I still don't look at movies twice. It's funny, I just feel I got it the first time. With music it's different. People respond so differently to the whole issue of seeing a movie many times. I'm astonished when I talk to really good critics, who know their stuff and will see a film eight or ten or twelve times. I don't see how they can do it without hating the movie. I would.
 * "The Perils of Being Pauline," interview with Francis Davis, The New Yorker (October 2001).

 * For some strange reason we don't go to charming, light movies anymore. People expect a movie to be heavy and turgid, like "American Beauty." We've become a heavy-handed society.
 * "The Perils of Being Pauline," interview with Francis Davis, The New Yorker (October 2001).

Misattributed

 * I see little of more importance to the future of our country and of civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist. If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.
 * John F. Kennedy, address at the dedication of the Robert Frost Library, Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts (October 26, 1963).

 * I am mystified. I know only one person who voted for Nixon.
 * Attributed to Kael after the 1972 American Presidential election, which Nixon won easily. This misquote is presumably based on "I live in a rather special world." above, but there is no evidence that Kael was mystified or surprised by that election's outcome. Full quote: "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them."

title: Pauline Kael


text:
User talk:Naranda7~enwikiquote

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote. Enjoy! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump.
 * To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
 * To sign with a date, write four tildes (~~) and save.
 * Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
 * Be bold.

Nicholas Aranda article
It may seem somewhat perverse to be telling you this after posting a welcome message, but I'm afraid your "Nicholas Aranda" article has been deleted per Wikiquote guidelines. I'd like to explain how this happened, in the hopes that this initial unfortunate start won't prevent you from participating in this project. I hope that you may find Wikiquote an interesting place to read and edit, despite this negative experience. Feel free to post any questions or comments you may have to my talk page. Thank you for your understanding and patience. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First, Wikiquote is a compendium of quotes from notable sources, i.e., those whose quotations tend to come from published sources. It is not, as many newcomers believe, a place for everyone to add their own quotes.
 * However, all users are welcome to add their own quotes (along with information about themselves or their interests) on their user pages. If you happen to be Nicholas Aranda himself, your quotes can be added to User:Naranda7. (I can recover them for you if you desire, so you won't have to type them in again.)
 * When an article is nominated for deletion, it announces to the community that someone believes the article is not appropriate for Wikiquote, based on its guidelines. When the article is about a person, it usually means that the nominator suspects it to be a "vanity" page, which is a quote page from the editor rather than a famous person with published quotes. This is why we ask for "evidence of notability", like publications, broadcast or cinematic sources, etc. If such information is added, it will typically be verified. For example, your temporary addition of "Preface to Paradise Lost" made me consider that you might be quoting John Milton, so I checked and found no preface in the Project Gutenberg copy of PL.
 * While an article is under consideration for deletion, it is against policy to remove the VfD (vote for deletion) tag from the article. It doesn't change the review process (except possibly to bias other editors against the tag remover), but it does prevent other readers of the article from noticing that it is under review for deletion. We've had several articles whose deletion was prevented because their readers saw that VfD announcement and decided to register their opinions and work to save the article. (Veronica Mars was an excellent example. Not only did several editors provide sourceable quotes, but we eventually got a new administrator from their number.)
 * Finally, the oddly-timed welcome message I posted is in part a means to provide newcomers with useful links to information about Wikiquote. Unfortunately, we don't have the large numbers of maintenance editors that Wikipedia has, so new editors sometimes don't get this helpful message in a timely fashion. I feel that we might have done better by you if we'd posted this message earlier on your talk page.

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 Naranda7. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Naranda7~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 23:30, 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) 05:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Naranda7~enwikiquote


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Nicholas Aranda

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 14:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Aranda
Not notable. ~ UDScott 14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Vote closed. Result: delete (2 Deletes; no dissent; no evidence provided). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless evidence of notability is provided. I couldn't find much on anyone notable in a Google search on this name. ~ UDScott 14:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with UDScott. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Andrew Nierman

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: delete. — Jeffq 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Nierman
No quotes, and not notable. ~ UDScott 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Vote closed. Result: delete (3 Deletes; 1 Keep; (unsourced) quotes added, but notability deemed insufficient per WP/WQ guidelines). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless quotes are added and notability is shown. This appears to just be a professor (and precedent holds that such people are not notable enough to post their quotes unless they have published significant works or are generally considered well-known). ~ UDScott 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete, quotes have been added and this person is of note, having been named the smartest person in the world by the International High IQ Society. He has additionally published sidgnificant works in the area of XML databases and probabalistic information. ~ Ealtorfer 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, concurring with UDScott. This article appears to have been created by an understandably admiring University of Puget Sound student of a professor whom an International High IQ Society contest called "the world's smartest person". The article cites a UPS course page instead of the more informative University of Michigan student webpage of former grad student Nierman. The latter includes citations of an Ann Arbor News article in which he is quoted as saying, "Pretty funny […] I think there's a little bit of difference between being the world's smartest person and winning this contest." Indeed, the International High IQ Society's website doesn't seem to consider this title important enough even to mention it in any obvious place on its website]; in fact, my quick perusal didn't even turn up the contest itself. (And how smart can this organization be if they don't even provide a search function for their website? ☺) Seriously, this newly-minted professor would need a good amount of published work to meet the usual wiki notability requirements. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the professor test. No page on Wikipedia despite WQ article linking there (this is not to be construed as an encouragement to add a vanity page to Wikipedia!). jni 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.