Talk:Leo Strauss

message: I changed the section at the top because I don't think the way it was written made it clear that Strauss was born in Germany as a Jewish person. They way it was previously stated, a reader might reasonably assume Strauss was born in the U.S. but had a German-Jewish parents or ethnic heritage of the same. I also tried to fix some personalized paraphrasing in the Philosophy section, while incorporating the existing ideas and prose. I think the article was pretty choppy and inconsistent, and thus cried out for an attempt at streamlining it into something a reader could process logically.--Mikerussell 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German-Jewish Extraction means what? 

message: The article cited Andrew Sullivan very vaguely about Strauss right in the first paragraph, to have Sullivan mentioned so prominently in a kind of hearsay comment, reads very amateurish. Another editor added info about the article below, and it had no title, and really did not deserve to be in the body of the text. 
*Melzer, Arthur. "Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism." American Political Science Review. 100, (2006) 279-295. --Mikerussell 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sullivan and Arthur Melzer drop-in comments revamped 

message: Added a revised edit on the biography upbringing issue in light of the ambiguity of opinion in the published sources. Adding the "A Giving of Accounts" quote which is a secondary quote of the comments, but interesting and certainly worthy of inclusion, even if the article seems a little swollen in the beginning. 
*"A Giving of Accounts" The College 22 no.1 p.1-5, St. John's College Review: Annapolis, 1970. and/or
*"A Giving of Accounts" Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997, p.457-465.--Mikerussell 05:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Giving of Accounts" Strauss' comments on Orthodox or Conservative 

message: The Conservative movement in Judaism began in the U.S. There was no Conservative Judaism in Germany in the late 19th or early 20th century, though there were currents in German Judaism that were related to Conservatism.  At any rate, though it may or may not be correct to call Strauss's family "Orthodox," it is certainly incorrect to call them "Conservative."  I've amended the sentence on the main page to retain the questions about the Strauss' religious practice while removing the reference to Conservative Judaism.BenA (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative Judaism in Late 19C Germany

message: I marked the section on Strauss in the public view as in need of cleanup because it reads poorly. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to do it myself. Perhaps some other kind soul? --Beaker342 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: On June 17th a user placed the below concern on the Archive page, ten days after the archive was created. I noticed it now, and since the user is new, I think they made a mistake in where to place the comment. Since it is 6 weeks old, the user may want to update it, but it seemed worthy of repeating here again.--Mikerussell 05:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "tragedy" is used here in the sense of sad or disasterous, then it's just a poor choice of words.  Otherwise (of tragedy is referred to here as the art form), I'm not sure how nihilism can be likened to tragedy in Nietzsche's work.  Nietzsche associated tragedy with Wagner and classical sources, but later moved away from this, first by distancing himself from the balance found in "The Birth of Tragedy" and then later by falling out with Wagner.  If anything, the Ubermensch is not a mitigation of tragedy, but a transvaluation of it. --Vector4F 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to be the editor's assessment of Nietzsche, not Heidegger's. It's accurate insofar as humanity would have been better had Christianity and the subsequent nihilism it produced had never come along, but since they have, they each open up new possibilities as each is transcended. I don't have any huge problems with the paragraph as it stands. --Beaker342 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised to see that Abrady mentions Schopenhauer. If anyone would take the trouble to read this philosopher, he/she would see that Nietzsche's nihilism is another name for Schopenhauer's pessimism. However, due to the influence of Hegel on academia, this is forbidden knowledge and never to be mentioned.Lestrade (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced comment in Archive 1 repeated 

message: The discussion of Heidegger's revisions on Nietzsche includes the unexpected parenthetical "the nihilism that Nietzsche regarded as unmitigated tragedy." I am not sure if this is Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche (if so it could use a cite), but if it's not, and is instead the reading of whoever wrote it, I think it should probably be revised. Nietzsche thought it was a danger, thought Schopenhauer got caught in it, but never have I read any discussion of nihilism as "unmitigated tragedy." If anything, the ubermensch is the mitigation; more, it's the solution to this "tragedy." Not to mention, putting the word "tragedy" in Nietzsche's mouth is particularly worrisome, given his work on the subject. I don't know Heidegger well enough to work on the section, but could someone take a look at it?
Abrady 04:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "tragedy" is used here in the sense of sad or disasterous, then it's just a poor choice of words.  Otherwise (of tragedy is referred to here as the art form), I'm not sure how nihilism can be likened to tragedy in Nietzsche's work.  Nietzsche associated tragedy with Wagner and classical sources, but later moved away from this, first by distancing himself from the balance found in "The Birth of Tragedy" and then later by falling out with Wagner.  If anything, the Ubermensch is not a mitigation of tragedy, but a transvaluation of it. --Vector4F 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to be the editor's assessment of Nietzsche, not Heidegger's. It's accurate insofar as humanity would have been better had Christianity and the subsequent nihilism it produced had never come along, but since they have, they each open up new possibilities as each is transcended. I don't have any huge problems with the paragraph as it stands. --Beaker342 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised to see that Abrady mentions Schopenhauer. If anyone would take the trouble to read this philosopher, he/she would see that Nietzsche's nihilism is another name for Schopenhauer's pessimism. However, due to the influence of Hegel on academia, this is forbidden knowledge and never to be mentioned.Lestrade (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche's Nihilism 

message: Leo Strauss' friend Jacob Klein, was not the Jacob Klein linked to from the article.  His freind was tutor and dean at St. John's College in Annapolis MD, and wrote a commentary on Plato's Meno, The Origins of Greek Mathematical Thought, an Introduction to Aristotle.  The other Jacob Klein linked to was a mathematician physicist.
:I un-wikied the Jacob Klein, is the this person worthy of an article themselves? and thus a disambiguation page too? I don't know enough to say either way.--Mikerussell 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Jacob Klein is linked to in article 

message: The below was deleted, but the article it was based on was added to the bibliography, (Thomas West's article). The below passage is pretenious. The content could certainly be included without starting a whole new section- oddly placed at the end of the article like a hiccup- and without using so many words. As written it takes one aspect of Strauss' thought and inflates its significance into a ridiculous 'schools of thought' dicothmy that supposedly shapes and define all scholars influenced or studying Strauss; it is American-centric too, and could be judiciously incorporated into the body of the article in a couple of places, citing Bloom's and Mansfield's varity of opinion according to Thomas West's article Jaffa Versus Mansfield Does America Have A Constitutional or A "Declaration of Independence" Soul?.Online
:Two schools of thought known as East-Coast and West-Coast Straussianism developed from Strauss's work. The branch off of West-Coast Straussianism from East-Coast Straussianism arose from a dispute between two Straussians Alan Bloom and Harry Jaffa over the cultural significance of "myths" in society.
:East-Coast Straussianism
:The adherents of East-Coast Straussianism believe that "myths" or "noble lies" are essential for the stability of society, and that the writings of Plato sought to promulgate these "myths" for the good of society. However, East-Coast Straussians believe that outside of these "myths" no objective societal principles exist from which to govern a society. 
 
:West-Coast Straussianism
:"West-Coast Straussianism was originated by Harry Jaffa founder of the Claremont Institute a think tank of West-Coast Straussian  who disagreed with the East-Cost Straussians that no objective principles existed with which to rule a society, and therefore, societal good was not solely based on these "myths" but that it also entailed some self-evident truths.http://www.claremont.org/writings/000901west.html
Whoever wrote this should, if they feel it is important to include, cite the sources from which the opinions attributed to Bloom and Jaffa come from, or at least give the debate a context in Strauss' writings as well, as to where these issues arose.--Mikerussell 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straussian Schools of Thought

message: I would like to add the following books to the 'Bibliography on Strauss' section:
Benardete, Seth, Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 229 pages, 2002.
Drury, Shadia B., The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, New York: St. Martin's Press, 256 pages, 1988.
Lampert, Laurence, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 229 pages, 1996.
Neumann, Harry, Liberalism, Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 336 pages, 1991.
Rosen, Stanley, "Hermeneutics as Politics" in Hermeneutics as Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 87-140.
Zuckert, Catherine H., Postmodern Platos, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 351 pages, 1996
I think Benardete's book should be included as a counterpoint to the reminisces of Ms. Norton. The first book by Drury, Political Ideas was probably her best book. Lampert, with Rosen and Benardete, represent the strongest philosophical (i.e., non-political) students of Strauss, and should be represented in the bibliography. Neumann is the Straussian wild-man and this possibility also needs to be noted. Ms. Zuckert's book has three chapters out of nine on Strauss and is very smart on the post-Nietzschean representation of Plato. Some of these books (e.g., Drury, Rosen) are now out in second editions. I have not seen them so I cite the first edition.
Pomonomo2003 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibibliography 

message: According to his NYT obit, Strauss also had a daughter named Jenny Clay as well as his (step?)son Thomas, and three grandchildren. "Dr. Leo Strauss, Scholar, Is Dead" NYT October 21, 1973.
Jenny Strauss Clay is a professor of classics at the University of Virginia and occasionally writes about her father.
http://phronesis.org/article.php3?id_article=13
:His two children were accounted for in the article. In the previous paragraph it was stated he adopted his neice when her parents died in Eygpt (this undoubtedly is Jenny Clay Strauss), I am not sure when this was done, or how old she was when he legally adopted her. His son was also adopted since his wife was a widow with a young child when they married. Accordingly, I reinserted the comment about no biological children. It is a small point of probably no biographical significance beyond a recognition of life's fate, but why not keep it in if it is true?--Mikerussell 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Kraus (Arabist) for the biography. Read the links if you want to get a "personal" look at the loving and caring person he was in his private life (and according to his daughter, in his thoughts too). פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strauss had a daughter 

message: "He contended that great thinkers are bold but wary of pitfalls, while scholars benefit from surer ground."
Shouldn't this say that great thinkers are bold but unwary, meaning heedless?
:I don't think so, but I did not write that part, although I am familiar with the passage. The biggest problem with this article is it lack references (I think it only has 1 official citation- although some sections have references in the text which should be reformated and placed at the end). I say problem not becuase the article is wrong, but it does refer to many of his works and if the correct cite was added it would reinforce the points. I am just as guilty as others for being too lazy to add the references, but I just don't have time to do it lately.--Mikerussell 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: This article was linked from a post on HuffPo this morning and is also high on the list of HuffPo posts on Yahoo! here in relation to today's election, so we may be seeing some vandalism in the near future. Just a heads up. Dekimasu 09:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linked from HuffingtonPost

message: An editor keeps adding this material:
*Strauss' association with Schmitt has been a matter of some controversy, because of Schmitt's important role in the Nazi government. 
Yet there is no mention of any controversy in the sources. At most we can say that Strauss has been criticized for his association with Schmitt. The second source is a self-published non-academic, non-notable person. We already describe Strauss' association with Schimtt, I don't see a reason for piling on criticism from non-notable sources. -Will Beback · † · 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LaRouche view of Strauss 

message: At first I was against the removal of the links to the BBC page, but if you search the pages linked to, there's no use of Strauss's name. If it's about the Neoconservative movement and not about Strauss, then it shouldn't be linked to on his page, but on the Neoconservative page (it very may well be linked to on that page already). Phil 11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to put that paragraph back after 85.82.215.23 's May 30th edit. The link certainly does refer to Strauss by name, and the entire paragraph is well written and does a good job of connecting Strauss' name to many contemporary events, an area that this article could improve upon.  In fact I think its a good idea to retitle the last section - CONTEMPORARY perspectives on "the Straussian" and "Straussianism", agreed then? Dr.crawboney (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a lot of back and forth has continued over more than one year concerning this section I have started work on it last night. I discussed it on the talk page of one person who was deleting it holus bolus, User:Dynablaster. In response to his comments I have now included sourcing, and greatly reduced all the attempts to put in "yes but" arguments which are indeed in violation of WP:OR. If anyone knows proper published responses to the documentary, then this would be something that could be included, but until now no-one has bothered and so Wikipedia editors may not put in their own responses. I felt that keeping the section is necessary, at least in a stripped down form, because the fact that a person is mentioned many times as an influence in world politics in a very well-known documentary is not something we should delete, even if controversial. (Upon looking at the documentary, which is all over the internet, I see that it was more guarded in its claims than the article made out, and this has also been adjusted.) See WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The documentary is nice and interesting, but in so far Strauss gets discussed, it does not get beyond conspiracy theory: the vile Leocon deceivers took over America in order to wage a fratricide war against their Muslim ideological fellows. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

text: It depicts Strauss as a Western version of Sayyid Qutb, this comparison is, frankly, hogwash. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is your original opinion, and not the opinion of a published source I suppose. Wikipedia core content policy tells us to neutrally report controversies that exist in not only the best sources, but also notable sources. The BBC is normally considered a pretty notable and reliable source. If we agree that they are taking a relatively extreme position, which is quite a reasonable thing to argue in many cases of course, then we simply make it clear that this is the position debated by one source, rather than presenting the positions as uncontroversial facts in the voice of Wikipedia. I can not think of a policy justification for not mentioning the documentary at all. The documentary is about Neoconservatives, not Strauss as such, but he is mentioned it seems. (We could discuss how much he is mentioned perhaps. It is a significant mention? I seem to remember it was.) That Strauss gets associated with Neoconservatism is undeniable even if controversial, and there are at least indirect links with students and people who cite him a lot. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of those identified as Straussians in the documentary are not in fact Straussians. And, as someone argued, if politicians do lie, they did not learn it from Strauss. Strauss was not an enemy of freedom and democracy, although some of the philosophers he described would have been opposed to liberal democracy, if they knew it. But that's their own fault, not Strauss's fault. It appears that Strauss himself would not have supported neoconservatism, if he knew it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No point debating it here though. What we do on Wikipedia is try to summarize what publications say according to a reasonable methodology. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Source: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo4038449.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong stuff! "The Truth about Leo Strauss. Political Philosophy and American Democracy" (2006, University of Chicago Press), Catherine H. Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, pages 13 and 14: "Characteristically, the LaRouchite version of the carryover themes is stated in more extreme and immoderate language, but the main elements of what the mainstream press promoted as  Straussian are present in nearly recognizable form in the LaRouchite statements. In contrast to LaRouche’s own promodern, proprogressive, prodemocratic Prometheanism, Strauss is presented as  regressive and fascist—even Nazi. According to one of the LaRouchite statements, significantly subtitled “Leo Strauss, Fascist Godfather of the Neo-Cons”: “A review of Leo Strauss’ career reveals why the label ‘Straussian’ carries some very filthy implications. Although nominally a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany . . . Strauss was an unabashed proponent of the three most notorious shapers of the Nazi philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt. ... Strauss, in his long academic career, never abandoned his fealty to Nietzsche, Heidegger and Schmitt.” The LaRouche writings constantly affirm the Nietzsche-Heidegger-Schmitt-Nazi filiation of Strauss, and then they group him with a surprising set of thinkers (mostly fellow ´emigr´es), who allegedly stand for the same “fascist” principles. ... Thus Steinberg identifies “the hallmark of Strauss’s approach to philosophy” as “his hatred of the modern world,  his belief in a totalitarian system, run by ‘philosophers,’ who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish ‘populist’ mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude.” Tony Papert, another member of the LaRouche organization, expands on these themes: according to Strauss, “moral virtue had no application to the really intelligent man, the philosopher. Moral virtue only existed in popular opinion, where it served the purpose of controlling the unintelligent majority.”"     ←   ZScarpia   23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

text: My impression is that the following extract from Tony Burns and James Connelly's "The Legacy of Leo Strauss" is a concise and realistic description of how things played out: "Leo Strauss was a political philosopher who died in 1973 but came to came to prominent attention in the United States and also Britain around the beginning of the War in Iraq. Charges began emerging that architects of the war such as Paul Wolfowitz and large numbers of staff in the US State and Defense Departments had studied with, or been influenced by, the academic work of Strauss and his followers. A vague, but powerful, idea was generated in the popular press that a group known as the Straussians had been instrumental in the long-range strategic planning of American foreign policy, both to advance American interests and to encourage democratic revolutions outside the West."     ←   ZScarpia   09:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" 

message: In the Social Sciences section of the article, it is written: "A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was impossible, not just a tragic self-delusion."
Can someone explain what the difference between self-delusion and impossibility is? Why were these particular words chosen? If anyone who thinks they are a particular thing is labeled: self-delusional, how is this not calling the being-of-the-thing impossible? SJCstudent 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I wrote it. I am not sure why I chose the words- I almost laughed when I read that question- Why were these particular words chosen? You are treating the text with too much respect! Simple answer- it made sense to me when I wrote it and I think it represents, or at least comes close to representing, Strauss' view, and certainly my own view of Strauss' view- right or wrong. If you want a careful detailed explanation, there isn't one, hey this is wikipedia and I like to contribute but it is what it is, you know- a user edited online encyclopedia. I'm like a bumble bee, it seems to me in hindsight, I just fly around with no direction or plan and edit what I like when I like. I have no clear plan or agenda, it is just a hobby. As far as what I think a reader can infer from the sentence, well- anyone may be self-delusional about many things.  Examples might be that s/he is self-delusional about their dog talking to them, and self delusional about their spouse loving them; yet it may be possible that your spouse does love you, but it is impossible that your dog can talk to you. Thus political scientists may be self-delusional about a whole number of things, but when you add to the list of self-delusions their belief that they can view politics opinion free or purely like a natural scientist looks at fruitflies mating, then they are going beyond just being self-delusional, they are wrong. That is what the senetence means to me as I re-read it, and it seems to me it means that to you too, but you just don't want to accept the underlying assumption, people by nature are self-delusional about many things. --Mikerussell 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Delusion vs Impossibility 

message: I am sorry but I have to fail this because it is not sourced. Please find secondary WP:RS compatible sources for the statements made in this article. Thanks --Aminz 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be sorry, I agree with you. Whoever asked for the review should try to improve it first with adequate sourcing before trying again. --Mikerussell 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This article still needs much improvement of its documentation, using reliable sources (see tags throughout and editorial interpolations. --NYScholar 17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA failed 

message: Inclusion of this source contested by some editors. Including it still appears to be consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Citing sources as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; deleting it seems to be related to editors' own points of view (POV) and thus not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
I do not consider that editorial interpolation to be "inflammatory" as another user claims in a recent editing summary upon his having deleted it.  I posted that some time ago after a number of people seemed to be warring over that particular source due to that very problem in attempt to point out that such a problem existed (which it did) and that people needed to be cautious of their own biases in making such deletions (not based on Wikipedia policy); SourceWatch  articles are linked in external links and bibliographical entires throughout many articles in  Wikipedia (still).
For the prevalent bibliographical (ext. links) refs. to SourceWatch articles in Wikipedia articles, see "what links here" in SourceWatch.  (Cf. the templates used for other user-contributed sites like IMDb and NNI, enabling their linkage in ext. links in bibliography secs. of Wikipedia.)
I deleted another ext. link to a self-published website that I had earlier marked as "dubious" in another editorial deletion.  I deleted the link to the site and the comment; editing summary history points to its unreliability.   I follow WP:Attribution, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, e.g.  My editing summaries state explanations. --NYScholar 17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SourceWatch does appear in the external links section of many Wikipedia articles. However, linking to external wikis is not without controversy. The first criteria of links normally to be avoided is any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. It's hard to imagine how any external wiki provides a unique resource beyond that which our own Wikipedia article would provide it if was fully developed. That was the reason I cited for deleting the link to SourceWatch. So yes, your interpolated comment was inflammatory because it ignored my stated rationale for deleting the link and accused me of POV pushing. If an editor has something to say about another editor's actions, it should be said on the article's talk page or the other editor's talk page and attributed with a signature. Accusations of POV pushing should not be embedded into the article. As far as I'm concerned that's a breech of etiquette if not civility. MoodyGroove 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [BTW: I did not make any such "accusations" of "POV pushing": the user who used the phrase and thus made such an accusation, in effect citing WP:POVPUSH, was the one who deleted the SourceWatch source--editing summary; then another user restored the link to the SourceWatch article, referring to W:EL; it was the second user citing W:EL with whom I was agreeing (as I state in the editing summary) and in my restoring the link after MoodyGroove reverted to the deletion ; in effect MG was agreeing with EW's summary citing "POVPUSH" (That's the apparent incivility, not my editing summary or editorial interpolation afterward).  I never used the term "POV pushing"; actually, the users deleting the SourceWatch article were making that accusation themselves.  It "seem[ed] to me, I wrote, (and it still "seems" to me) that they were deleting the SourceWatch article because they did not agree with its "POV" (as they were calling it "POVPushing".)  Check out the editing history summaries cited above.  --NYScholar 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: see WP:POV. see also What links here for how other Wikipedia articles incorporate references to SourceWatch.  There is no breach of etiquette or any incivility in my editorial interpolation, despite the unwarranted claim above, which I regard as "a breach of etiquette if not civility"; it is totally uncalled for, in my view, as was deleting my editorial interpolation, which was properly worded and properly placed at the time that I placed it.  There was no discussion in this talk page of this article by users deleting the SourceWatch article, and this talk page and the editing summaries in editing history are what I was consulting and reading at the time that I posted my editorial interpolation.  I did not consult anyone's personal talk pages; I was simply responding to what people had posted in their editing history summaries at the time.  That is all that I knew about. If one has particular disagreements about the content of an article, one needs to post one's concerns on the talk page of the article in question and/or in editorial interpolations (which are quite common in Wikipedia relating to specific sources and lacks of sourcing); otherwise, others will not know what one's concerns are.  Editorial interpolations are for problems too, and I posted both a clear editing summary and a clear editorial interpolation alerting other users to the problems that I was concerned might continue.  If the editorial interpolation is no longer necessary, because consensus has been reached re: the SourceWatch source among many editors over an extended period of time, that is fine.  But as that is not clear, I've posted the deleted editorial interpolation above.  Anyone can see that it was totally civil and totally within Wikipedia etiquette and no purported breach of either one, as I have further explained above; see also the editing history summary: at the time I was not the only one expressing concern about the deletion.  The policy is Wikipedia is WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; I suggest that the above editor consult these policies in tandem again, as Wikipedia:Etiquette is related to both of them too.  Concerns about deleting reliable and pertinent sources in Wikipedia is an ongoing problem and not the concern of simply one editor.  Many editors have expressed similar concerns over several years. (There is nothing "uncivil" in my sentence "deleting it seems to be related to editors' own points of view (POV) and thus not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Notice the emphasis seems.  I was concerned about the appearance of multiple "editors' own points of view (POV)" resulting in their deletion of the source [and the accusation that the first user deleting it made to WP:POVPUSH.]  I was not the only editor who expressed that concern at the time; I was actually agreeing with the editing summary comment of an earlier editor, who objected to the deletion at the time [citing propriety of the inclusion of the source and who referred in his editing summary to W:EL).  That is all that I had seen and I restored the source in agreement with that editor's editing summary.  One should not be accused of "incivility" etc. for agreeing with another editor's reasonable editing summary statement citing Wikipedia policy (W:EL).  Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view clearly states that the sources being cited need not be neutral; a neutral Wikipedia editor is documenting various points of view by citing them (various points of view on a subject), and following WP:POV.] --NYScholar 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: [Note: I will be offline for the rest of the night and also for most of the following week and I will not be consulting Wikipedia for much of the time for the rest of the summer.  I will not see further discussion of this matter.  This is really all that I have time to post about it.  Out of courtesy, I posted this full explanation. --NYScholar 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point remains that you ignored my edit summary, restored the disputed content to the article, and inserted an interpolation that suggested I was POV pushing ("deleting it seems to be related to editors' own points of view (POV) and thus not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"). That wasn't constructive. Content disputes are supposed to be handled via polite discussion on talk pages. It was Will Beback who restored the SourceWatch link to the Leo Strauss article. I disagreed with that decision, so I discussed it with him on his talk page before I removed the link from the article. That's what it means to develop consensus. Consensus isn't something that appears magically when there's a content dispute. You work for it. But you have to care what other editors think. What right do you have to use an interpolation to "alert other users" to an alleged problem you were "concerned might continue" when you hadn't even discussed the alleged problem with the editor who originated it? You don't own this article. Your refusal to "see further discussion" of this matter is typical. It's not like you made an effort to discuss it in the first place. MoodyGroove 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: When in doubt, bury your opponent in a mountain of text, with lots of bullet points, and vague references to dozens of Wikipedia editing guidelines. Remember to offer counter-accusations. It's just my opinion, but I think you have a poor understanding of consensus. Engaging other editors in constructive dialog is a critical part of consensus building, and the main reason we have talk pages. Two editors certainly can reach consensus all by themselves if they are the only two people involved in a specific content dispute, no matter how controversial the subject of the article. A little communication goes a long way. Wikipedia is not a battleground. We're supposed to be negotiating with each other in good faith, not using interpolations to make passive aggressive comments about each other. This may come as a shock, but we're all interested in improving the article. MoodyGroove 05:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My own editorial interpolation deleted from bibliog./ext. links sec. by another user

message: :Image:LeoStrauss.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LeoStrauss.jpg

message: Did Leo Strauss ever comment the holocaust? Does anybody know?
Strauss spoke about Nazism and the general situation only once, so far as I know, around the time of the war. The only verifiable source you'll find which might mention his thoughts on the holocaust, while it was a contemporary issue, or the potentiality for a holocaust, are featured at the internet archive in some personal notes of his which were used in a 1941 lecture on German nihilism. It is extremely insightful and consistent with his other writings on Nietzsche, Hegel and Heidegger.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullyccro (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Leo Strauss ever give any comment on the holocaust? 

message: This article notes that Strauss distinguished between philosophers and scholars (but this comment lacks a citation).  I read elsewhere that Strauss identified himself as a scholar and not a philosopher. Should the article lead be changed to say that Strauss was a "scholar" or "political theorist" rather than a "philosopher." I'm having trouble finding information on the Strauss and his scholar/philosopher distinction though. Does anyone have any references on this?--Bkwillwm 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation now provided, but this passage (not mine!) has raised a couple of understandable doubts, so... (1) Bloom Giants 239 suggests: Strauss was a genuine philosopher but too modest to say so, presenting himself as only a scholar (student, commentator, historian). (2) In the passage source (Rebirth 29–30)... (a) Strauss's words "we scholars" suggest some irony, since the phrase is well-known from Nietzshe's Beyond, where contemporary "philosophers" are derided as mere scholars. (b) The phrase "charmed circle" reminds of other passages (Tyranny [1991] 195; Liberalism ["Epilogue"] 203) where Strauss describes the charmed circle (school or sect) not as a shelter for scholars but as a trap from which the philosopher must free himself. (c) Strauss says he is using the term "scholar" to mean "historian of philosophy". And he often argues that we moderns need such a history (in which we try to understand the thought of past philosophers exactly as they did) to free us from the grip of historicism (according to which the views of past thinkers are prejudged as outdated) so that philosophy proper will be possible for us (e.g. Strauss Persecution ["Spinoza"] 142, 151–55; City 8–10). The historical question, whether a thinker held a certain view, is different from the philosophic question, whether the view is true (What Is ? ["Forgotten"] 222).  I believe Strauss consistently uses terms like "scholar" or "historian" to indicate this particular task, the effort to follow a thinker's thought rather than judge it. (But of course this doesn't mean that Strauss is not a philosopher.) (3) In What Is ? ("Forgotten") Strauss says that the historian is "not likely" to be a great thinker (228), but that commentators (or scholars) can have philosophic depth (230). —No doubt in time subject Wiki paragaph will be given its context. Jdpiffle 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholar or philosopher? 

message: :Image:Cityandmanstrauss.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cityandmanstrauss.jpg

message: I'm very curious as to where these accusations originate.  The claim that Strauss had a "hidden" political philosophy that was elitist, illiberal and anti-democratic.  Reading through the article and even several of the external articles linked to, I don't see any actual quotes from Strauss himself that would indicate this.  I realize this may be a shortcoming of the criticisms themselves, and not necessarily the Wikipedia article, but it would be a great addition to the article if someone could provide a quote from Strauss or even one from one of his students that demonstrates this "hidden" philosophy. Awinkle (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sad part is that the critics believe liberalism and democracy to be unqualifiedly good (and the more the merrier), so no elaboration is required to explain why being elitist, illiberal, or anti-democratic is bad. Some things just can't be questioned in contemporary politics. That would seem to prove Strauss's point that a philosopher had better watch what he says (or at least say it in a very careful way) lest he be condemned to death for offending the gods or corrupting the youth. More to the point, it would seem to be a waste of time to look for a quote from Struass that explains his "hidden teaching". Just know that he's a very bad man who is responsible for the war in Iraq. MoodyGroove (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I get your sarcasm, and I have similar feelings, but I was just reading the article about Allan Bloom... '"Closing of the American Mind" draws analogies between the United States and the Weimar Republic'  That might be where some of it originates.  But it would be hard to go down that path without it becoming "original research".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awinkle (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might find this article to be of interest. MoodyGroove (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, as I understand it, a lot of his writings seem to be capable of being read as saying that noble lies to create and maintain an elite is inevitable or desirable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: All this is all very well, but does Strauss adequately point out the disadvantages of noble lies, like the obvious huge loss of trust/power if and when noble lies are uncovered?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only if you believe in the long chain of dubious reasoning that links together Strauss's reading of Plato and the War in Iraq. I am not qualified to speak for Strauss, but I might suggest that our (mean liberal democracy's) noble lie is that all men are created equal. If that is liberal democracy's noble lie, then it would seem to be a very effective one. After all, the mere suggestion that Strauss condones elitism of any kind (for any reason, however noble) makes him not only a dangerous war-mongering fascist, but an illiberal, anti-democratic blasphemer. Ironic, considering that modern scholars no longer believe in the natural right tradition from which America's great claim to "truth" was derived. So where is the obvious huge loss of trust/power in the wake of the realization that our "rights" have no basis in nature? The silence is deafening. The ancients believed that a society could be judged according to the quality of citizen it produced. Modern scholars view democracy as an end in itself, and don't appear to be the least bit concerned about the appalling herd-like behavior of democratic mass-man, or the fact that democracy has no basis outside of our arbitrary preferences. Perhaps that is why Strauss indicated that because we are friends of liberal democracy, we cannot afford to be flatterers of liberal democracy, and perhaps that is why Strauss sought to renew the conflict between the ancients and the moderns. At any rate, I'm sure it wasn't Strauss's goal to put the neocons into office. MoodyGroove (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Elitist Philosophy Accusations 

message: I found the discussion of Strauss' family life overly detailed and it's placement in the first section is also inappropriate. It would be a welcome if the contributors would review their work.
--Philopedia (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly Detailed Family Background 

message: In the "Strauss on reading" section, it is claimed that Strauss supported obscure writing for the philosophical priesthood. When Strauss wanted to communicate this concept to his reading audience, did he choose to use obscure, esoteric, unclear, Hegelian language, which would prevent clear communication? If a person has a clear, well–formed idea in mind and takes the trouble to write it down and publish it, would that person want to present it in a manner that makes it difficult to understand? No. A clear idea is most successfully communicated through clear, simple language. However, if a person is influenced by other motives than successful communication, then writing esoterically is understandable. Such motives might be the desire to appear profound, the need to present a poor idea as a good idea, the compulsion to follow a stylistic trend, the wish to imitate an obscure writer, etc. Lestrade (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that's how Strauss wrote. His complex language is a major topic in the RS.  Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing esoterically

message: There's been a lot written on Strauss from a variety of critical perspectives, so it's strange that we devote the majority (about 2/3) of our criticism section to lengthy quotes from a single article by someone named Nicholas Xenos, who doesn't even appear to be one of the more notable critics of Strauss. As far as notable commentary goes, I'd say the debate between Steven Smith and Shadia Drury is probably more representative of scholarly opinion (on both sides). --Delirium (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section is a bit odd 

message: The inclusion of a whole section dedicated to a single television program, which happens to include a philosopher, in said philosopher's article, is extremely unencyclopedic (no other philosopher on the whole of wikipedia has such a section). Moreover, the tv program seems to have its own, rather large, article.
If you want we can put a link to the television program at the bottom of the page. But I don't see any large sections (accounting for >10% of the page & with its own SUB-HEADING) in the articles on, say Hegel or Sartre, which merely summarise the (possibly contentious) views of a single television program that happened once to have been made about them. Why should strauss be treated differently to every other philosopher  :) 86.26.0.25 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted section euphemistically entitled "Media representation of Strauss" 

message: Just here to explain a bit, my addition to the lead comes from summarizing the contents already present in the article, so I did not put any citations. But if any is needed I will do so promptly. I posted this here as my past edits have sometimes lacked citation where I should've put up references. Thank you! Wandering Courier (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  expanding the lead 

message: This is a very minor quibble, but FlieGerFaUstMe262 edited the text to say Straus was born in "what is now Germany." That needs a link, or a footnote, explaining what it was before. Weimar Republic? Bavaria? Poland? What? ElijahBosley (talk ☞)  20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The area was in fact also commonly called Germany in England at the time but the point being made is presumably that it was not officially called that. I do not really have a strong opinion on whether it should be worded like this (I have doubts) but I would start to dislike this detail more if others argue that if it stays it requires a special footnote on the subject of German history. That would be a distraction to the article. Personally I see no real reason for a footnote though, even with the addition. The area he was born in is now called Germany. What else needs to be explained in this particular article? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "what is now germany?" 

message: An image used in this article, File:LeoStrauss.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:LeoStrauss.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Schmitt was one of Strauss's professors and they were both interested in Thomas Hobbes. Schmitt wrote a standard letter of rec for Strass--all professorsdo that all the time--but it was in 1931-32. Strauss got the award in 1932 and left Germany permanently. In 1933 when the Nazis came to power Schmitt joined the Nazi party and helped with its laws. At that point he cut all ties to Strauss. Apart from Hobbes, the two did not agree on political philosophy. Rjensen (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read more carefully. That Schmitt recommeneded Strauss is a fact. When an author is mentionned, we must say what he did. In fact, they are some coincidences between the political philosophy of Strauss and his peers, except antisemistism of course (which is not a doctrine in political philosophy).  - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  10:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the carelessness is proven by getting the dates all wrong. Why is this particular letter writer singled out?? purely for POV reasons to hint  Straussians are nazis. Rjensen (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What dates are wrong ? You even didn't know that Schmitt adhered to Nazi party in 1933. Where is it written that straussian are nazis ? Remove the facts, that will sure produce an NPOV article...  - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  11:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Strauss got his fellowship in 1932 and went to France. 1934 is flat wrong and it associated Strauss with Nazis. When an editor links "Nazi" and person X that's designed to trick readers  into thinking X is associated with the Nazis. (Schmitt was not a Nazi when he wrote the letter about Strauss and Hobbes.) Rjensen (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejensen perhaps this is worth less of your time than it is getting.  Leo Strauss, Jewish/Nazi in exile?  Ha. Even the dumbest Wikipedia reader is going to have trouble swallowing that.   What is more interesting is Strauss's respect for Nietzsche.  Plato and Nietzsche were the two poles orienting Strauss's political philosophy.  Nietzsche is the intellectual grandfather of fascism, as much or more so than John Locke is the mentor of American liberal democracy.  So if one wants to suggest Strauss was a Nazi sympathizer (and thereby provoke laughter) the better argument would cite his serious scholarly interest in Nietzsche and to a lesser extent Heidegger (Nietzsche the cause, the Nazi Heidegger the effect)--not because somebody wrote Strauss a  letter of recommendation that allowed him to flee Nazi Germany. ElijahBosley (talk ☞)  14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ElijahBosley makes some good points. The problem is that few confused people are trying to link to make Strauss into a Nazi because one of his professors later became a Nazi.  (A lot of German intellectuals did, but not a Jewish Zionist like Strauss.)  As for Nietzsche, what the neocons picked up from Strauss was a very negative image of of him as the philosopher  most responsible for worst parts of 20c culture—relativism, godlessness, nihilism, and the breakdown of family values. Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody tells Strauss is a Nazi. And any ElijahBosley probably knows that  any basic reader of Strauss knows that Plato and Nietzsche were not the two poles of his philosophical system. But this is not the point here. We are referring to Schmitt. Apparently Rjensen didn't take the time to know that he did much more than write a simple recommendation letter for Strauss, and that he joined the Nazi party in 1933. And any basic reader of neoconservatism doctrine does know something about the various significations that some put under the name "natural law".  - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  16:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: sadly, TwoHorned's poorly phrased and incorrect edits link Strauss with Nazis. The famous letter of rec was written before Strauss got the fellowship in 1932, and therefore before Schmitt became a Nazi in 1933.  Rjensen (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, I am not of much use. I'll retire to a blessedly quiet life observing Proverbs 23:9, Proverbs 26:4, and Proverbs 26:5--unless maybe they contradict each other?  Or are they complementary? Puzzling, this question of how to live a good life, and as Strausss said of this central question Jerusalem and Athens may not always agree. ElijahBosley (talk ☞)  18:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: not of much use, you said it right.  - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  21:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NPA, I have striked out this inappropriate comment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, for your information, there is a correspondance between Schmitt and Strauss running between 1932-1933. What I am saying here is that the Strauss-Schmitt relation cannot be dismissed, as you do it here; even some authors favourable to Strauss do not dismiss it: see Robert Howse, The use and abuse of Leo Strauss in the Schmitt revival on the german right- the case of Heinrich Meier, NY Univ. Anyone who knows a bit of Strauss is aware of that the Strauss-Schmitt relation is an issue. This does not amounts to saying that Strauss is a Nazi, you're completely out of the point.  - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  22:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  false allegations regarding Schmitt 

message: The insufficiently footnoted bio section (under "Education") calls Jenny Strauss Clay Strauss's niece, that is "his sister's daughter."  But Clay herself in a New York Times piece called him her father. So which is it?  Was Clay speaking metaphorically?ElijahBosley (talk ☞)  12:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory both - adopted niece?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jenny Strauss Clay--daughter or niece? 

message: This section has a lot of detail that ought to move to the separate article on Persecution and the Art of Writing. If that is, it ought be included at all--there are no footnotes to document this analysis.  I suggest here we ought to simply state Strauss's thesis, and some reactions to it. Views?ElijahBosley (talk ☞)  13:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving text out of Persecution and the Art of Writing section 

message: I am soliciting comments on whether or not pay-per-view links should be included in articles. One editor removed such links from this article, as for example here.  Another added them back, here.  Technically, the first editor is correct as per point 6, in the Wikipedia policy on external links. But as matter of substance, the second editor is right. More and more academic journals are behind paywalls. So are more and more regular newspapers.  It's a matter of simple survival.   Discouraging pay-per-view links deprives readers of a useful resource if they have library access or are willing to pay.  I think we should reconsider the link policy. I have posted this on the pertinent 
Wikipedia policy talk page as well as here. ElijahBosley (talk ☞)  23:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia negative rule #6 has a "see below" Outside of citations--that is, it does not apply to citations, so it is not relevant here.  We're talking about citations to scholarly articles through JSTOR and similar sites. That is the place of original publication, and is the only place available on the web for them.  The guideline also states: "This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles." Rjensen (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  pay-per-view links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Leo Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061115105641/http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NzE5MTRlZGY5YmY1MTUyOTZkYWY5NThmZGQ2NTNjOTU= to http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NzE5MTRlZGY5YmY1MTUyOTZkYWY5NThmZGQ2NTNjOTU=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leo Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119085202/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6691/is_1-2_22/ai_n55282654/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6691/is_1-2_22/ai_n55282654/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Leo Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203032514/http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/112.html to http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/112.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320124400/http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/staff/eperreausaussine/atheism_and_Politics.pdf to http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/staff/eperreausaussine/atheism_and_Politics.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810072639/http://www.claremont.org/writings/000901west.html to http://www.claremont.org/writings/000901west.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203050425/http://www.counterpunch.org/frachon06022003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/frachon06022003.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060104183619/http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp05242003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp05242003.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208190715/http://www.counterpunch.org/madarasz06022003.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/madarasz06022003.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Leo Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130050901/http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=166 to http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=166
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008005749/http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/jaffa.html to http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/jaffa.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330031108/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume3/puccinini.html to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume3/puccinini.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909205936/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume3/verskin.html to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/tr/volume3/verskin.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Leo Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728053558/http://thephilosophyofscience.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/strauss-and-voegelin-on-popper/ to http://thephilosophyofscience.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/strauss-and-voegelin-on-popper/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210122421/http://www.uregina.ca/arts/CRC/encyc_leostrauss.html to https://www.uregina.ca/arts/CRC/encyc_leostrauss.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I deleted the last paragraph in the "On Reading" section. It is based on an article by an unidentified pseudonymous writer at the non-reliable-source dailykos.com, an article beginning with the line, "So Strauss was this nutjob from the University of Chicago."
Here is the most relevant paragraph from that article:
::Thus for example, in the "Republic," Strauss argued that Socrates' line of reasoning in the dialogue with Thrasymachus was an exoteric cover story: the REAL truth is actually the oratory of Thrasymachus.  Ergo, the "Republic" doesn't REALLY demand that a good Philosopher King be limited by morality (as we poor fools learned in school); rather, it argues that truth and morality are tools in the hand of the powerful.  Thrasymachus' theory of brutal power is really the way to go, and Socrates' nice-guy-king is just a pleasant cover story to keep non-elites from complaining.
This may all be accurate, but if it is, it should not be hard to cite where Strauss advances this theory, or a least to find a reputable scholar who interprets Strauss on Thrasymachus in this fashion. Meanwhile, the entire paragraph is suspect, including the mass of non-encyclopedic and unsourced but presumably quoted metaphors (although not from the dailykos.com article) that end it: "may not be able to discern the philosopher's real intent from the shadows, and language becomes a tightrope or a narcotic if not a whipsaw." —Blanchette (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced opinion on Leo Straus as pro-Thrasymachus and anti-Socrates in the ''Republic'' 

message: Just a note about the translation of what Strauss obviously considered an important question. The use of the subjunctive sit does not introduce, as in the previous translation, a doubt regarding the being in question, but is simply a subjunctive of subordination, required in Latin because the question is being introduced within a larger sentence. The full import of the question is evident in English with the direct question "What is God?". Desde la Torre (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quid sit Deus? 

message: I've recently edited the influence part of the template, based on various receptions by scholars of Strauss' work. But as they start to become quite a lot, I wonder what it means to be an influence on another thinker. First, are the "influence" and "influences" limited to philosophers alone, or do they include commentators, journalists, politicians historians, etc.? Second, how is it defined? Is Strauss' influence based on his method of interpreting texts, or his various positive assertions or criticisms? Does every person who cite or discuss Strauss - or anyone for that matter qualify them to be "influenced," by Wikipedia standards? Kai theos en ho logos (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does an "influence" mean?