Talk:Daniel Goldhagen

Mass vandalism from 5.148.56.210
Could someone more capable than me revert all the edits from 5.148.56.210 as they are all entirely vandalism. Freakdog (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources/Verifiability Needed
There have been some useful edits recently, and some begging to be verified. I'd like to have a productive conversation here on the talk page, instead of getting into a raging edit war on the article.

In response to some of the edits made on 10/19/2009 by 216.16.230.126. a) Can you cite where Goldhagen says that he "had been inspired to undertake the project as a response to Christopher Browning's..." I have not seen any such citation anywhere.

b) Goldhagen did debate Hans Mommsen, according to the Amos Elon article in the New York Times, that's referenced, it was the crowd that was angry at Mommsen and booed and heckled him. Mommsen later made what can be construed as a public apology for his remarks.  I think the edits make it seem that Goldhagen was angry or Mommsen was angry.  It was mostly the crowd that was angry specifically at Mommsen.  You can go to Youtube and see hours of debate.  Instead of me simply deleting the word "angry" from the article, I'll post this here and hope for a comment from  216.16.230.126.

c) Also, I think the details of "Heavens Not Darken" article are better suited to the article about HWE. I don't see how it has to do with Goldhagen's intellectual development.  Also, can it be verified that the article brought him widespread attention?

Again, I don't want to get into a silly flame wars that sicken all of us. I think many recent edits are well intentioned. I do think as the article improves, it's important that each and every piece of new information is verifiable. This goes for this article and anything else, especially BLP's. --crm411 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs)

Refocus article on Goldhagen’s whole life in line with BLP guidelines
I think an appropriate and important step in improving this BLP was when Avruch/Nathan, separated the HWE and the AMR discussion from the BLP of Goldhagen. Unfortunately, it did not solve all the problems with this article. I agree with Moonriddengirl, who subsequently said in Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive36 that she saw problems of bias in this BLP. Others have said the same.

A BLP should, in my opinion, be about the life of its subject. Instead, this BLP has, in my opinion, been a vehicle for people pro and against Goldhagen’s books. What’s mostly missing is “who is Goldhagen”, an article about the events of his life. Instead, the focus, has mostly been about two books: HWE and AMR, and depending on the day and the editing, one book, the other, or both. This Page’s history shows a large percentage of edits are POV’s, information that’s not verifiable, reverts, and depending on your definition, vandalism.

The WP:BLP guidelines state that ‘criticism and praise of the subject should be represented…so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article” I believe that on and off, this page has been overwhelmed, or as Moonriddengirl has argued, that it has not  been “balanced”. Talk:A Moral Reckoning

To help bring this BLP within the spirit of the WP:BLP guidelines, I created two new sections: 1) Supporters. 2) Critics. I’ve attempted in the rest of the page to list verifiable facts of Goldhagen as a man, where he’s been, what he’s written, the evolution of his thinking, the effect he’s had in certain spheres, and so forth. It is, hopefully, the beginning of a NPOV article that shows the arc/the odyssey of Goldhagen’s life.

What got me going was when I clicked on the article in The New York Times Magazine by Amos Elon. In it, he said, never mind if there are some historical inaccuracies, Goldhagen opened the door in Germany for modern Germans to look at their past. By many verifiable accounts, he sparked a cultural phenomenon in Germany. The BLP as it was going for years really didn’t give a sense of this significant part of Goldhagen's life, even though much has been written about it in places other than the Wikipedia. This BLP has not, in my opinion, represented the life, the arc of an individual. In that way this BLP, I believe, has deserved its low ranking as a start-Class.

Therefore, I’ve followed the recommendations for improving a start-Class article, and the guidelines for BLPs in order to improve it as a Wikipedia BLP. crm411 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs)


 * Here we go again, with User:Mamalujo. He is in my mind clearly obstructing any progress in making this page worthy of the Wikipedia. I am not surprised at all by his actions, since he is a known and predictable vandal, notwithstanding his lip service to reason. I really think that by doing a complete revert of the entry I made, and not because it's just my entry, he's shown without a doubt that he is a vandal. He's obviously hostile to Goldhagen but also to the Wikipedia itself. I have no interest in getting into an edit war with him or be pointy. It's clear that by wholesale deletions, even deleting the name of Goldhagen's spouse, which certainly is worthy of inclusion in a BLP, shows his complete lack of interest in supporting the principles of the Wikipedia. I have not gone into his edit history as Benjiboi has, nor do I really feel I need to. I think at this point the real question is what administrative actions will occur that can help make this BLP free of Mamlujo's and the POV/vandalisitic influences that's been going on for some time (years). I think the page should be protected or semi-protected, and that Mamalujo be dealt with in some fashion. crm411 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs)

Main Entry for Book HWE
I've moved the text in this article that focuses on the Hitler's Willing Executioners to an article under that name. I've removed the redirect on that page. The two articles now primarily focus on their own subject. Avruch 17:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please separate HWE from the author's biography
Almost all this article concerns the controversy about one book. How about creating an entry for the book and putting it there? There are other controversies about other books (e.g. Speer), and other aspects of the man; these should not be lost in the controversy. Coughinink 12:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And I don't know why the hell was the pov tag removed. It should be replaced until the article is unbiased. Presently it is biased against Goldhagen. —Cesar Tort 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm placing the tag again and if another editor removes it s/he has to state the reasons here in talk page per WP policy. —Cesar Tort 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The subarticle on "The Article in Midstream" should not be on this page. It was written by Erich Goldhagen, Daniel's father, who is also a Holocaust scholar. It was published in the early 1970s, before Daniel was even a teenager. - Jeff Benvenuto 11:34, 4 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbenven (talk • contribs)

Disputed Tag
I've added a factual dispute tag to the section on A Moral Reckoning due to the contradictory nature of the section, the first paragraph attacking the veracity and scholarship of the book and the second paragraph approving of its scholarship. This is not to say that both viewpoints shouldn't be represented, but the obvious contradictions of the section ("Attacked by many scholars" versus "Not attacked by any well-known scholars") should be corrected. Tiger Khan 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Single Author Page, Multiple Book Pages
It doesn't make sense to have an entire article, supposedly about Goldhagen, be about his second (and less notable) work. There is already a well cited article about a Moral Reckoning, why should that be pre-empted by POV and unsourced material on this page? And why do you revert the changes a week after you've obviously already noticed (and edited) the articles previous version, without discussion? That is edit-warring, and not productive. Avruch Talk 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since there is a separate article on the book - a point I was not aware of, a brief summary of the controversy which includes the basic contentions should be sufficient(not the previous summary which was too vague). As far as the matter which I reintroduced to the article, it was almost all sourced (except for the portion defending Goldhagen).  I did not delay in making the change as some kind of edit warring tactic but did so because that was the first chance I had the time to really look at the matter. Mamalujo (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to do a fair abridgement/summary of the criticism of the book, feel free. Otherwise, I will do so when I get around to it.  I see that a detailed criticism is contained in the article on A Moral Reckoning. Mamalujo (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. I created the article, I believe, and included and cited criticism and support. I also removed most of the detail about AMR from this article at the same time, and explained in my edit summary (although not, I don't think, on the talk page). Incidentally, I also created the HWE article for the same reason. Personally, I think the previous version that you changed (which directed readers to the main article of AMR) is more in line with policy than the current version. Avruch Talk 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

critisism of Goldhagen
Yehuda Bauer has criticized the work of the American political scientist Daniel Goldhagen, who writes that the Holocaust was the result of the allegedly unique “eliminationist” antisemitic culture of the Germans. He has accused Goldhagen of Germanophobic racism, and of selecting only evidence favorable to his thesis. 85.216.89.205 (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you wish to know? Ask.
Dear Shoplifter:

Moral outrage apart, if my explanations are unnecessary, why then do you revert my editorial work, for not EXPLAINING first. This Talk Page's consensus was and remains why I did and do my editing. Help me out, clue me in, because shooting first (threats with authority) is unbecomingly anti-intellectual. I shan't war with you; not my style.

I am working, you reverted the entire page, why? Please correspond, as you have requested.

Let me know, Mhazard9 (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your user talk page, where I originally apprised you of your violation of wiki guidelines in making sweeping changes without consulting the talk page. Shoplifter (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Dear Shoplifter:

The presumption of Good Faith rests upon you; check the rules; I expanded with verifiable facts. Show me the criticisms, and you and I shall resolve them. Fair?

Let me know. Mhazard9 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, as a showing of good faith I'll agree to that. Here's some of what I find problematic:


 * 1) You changed the name of the category "Critics" to "Detractors". The latter connotes writings of insulting nature as opposed to academic criticism.


 * 2) In describing the criticism of Finkelstein & Birn, you replaced the word "errors" with "errata". The latter is your WP:OR, the former is the correct assumption (namely, that published material contains errors, not misprints).


 * 3) You opted to describe the academic criticism of Goldhagen's book as "denunciations by detractors" instead of the neutral "other critics".


 * 4) You've editorialized on your view of Goldhagen's work in the introduction, employing a flagrantly WP:POV tone. Additionally, you removed the caveat about Goldhagen's most famous books being "controversial".


 * As a minor point, your stylistic changes do not comport with the Manual of Style. Shoplifter (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Shoplifter:


 * (i) I disagree; in context, that is a denotation, not a connotation perceived, not implied, because detractor is antonymic to supporter; still, no problem.


 * (ii) No, that is inaccurate, the Latin errata is "errors", that publishing usage is one denotation; still, no problem.


 * (iii) I disagree, the utterances quoted are denunciations by detractors; this is so because of the professional and personal attacks, that always betray true intent. Still, no problem.


 * (iv) What you deleted derived from the "Intellectual Development" section: "Goldhagen credits his father for the intellectual perspective of studying the subject and dispassionately reporting the events, the perpetrators, and their motives.[3]" It is the article's factual content. Please reconsider reinstating it — because that is what the tag requests: Who? What? Where? When? are unanswered by the Introduction, which derives from the substantiated content.


 * (v) Chacon son goût


 * Thank you, for the conversation. I enjoyed it. I trust we shall continue? I'm game. let me know, here, in the the Daniel Goldhagen biography, where the action is; not at my house.

Best regards Mhazard9 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very concerned with Mhazard9's edits on these topics. In particular, I perceive the editor's work in regards to Hitler's willing Executioners to be radically out of line with the citations and the text's actual worldly reception.  We'll work through this.  Please do presume good faith.  Also note BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; conversation first, if you are making controversial changes.


 * The world's historians are rarely more united in contempt than they seem to have been for Hitler's Willing Executioners. We can't just blank their comments, or avoid them, because we like or are sympathetic to the book.  A neutral perspective in this case does not mean neutral between our liking the book and the scholarly world disdaining it; it means a balance of scholarly sources, which must include the major players' perspectives, and not just op-eds and book salesmen saying that it "stimulates conversation".


 * To state that "two critical articles attacked [his propositions]", this is like saying two Jews died in the Holocaust. We can't have this.  This is dishonest.  Have you read these citations, Mhazard9?  Here, and at the book's entry?  DBaba (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are so many egregious errors and omissions, I'm sure there's much more to be done as far as repairing this entry, but I'm exhausted. All text I've added comes from previous versions of the page.  Some of the more entertaining problems I've corrected include the use of the word "executioners" as ostensibly neutral language, and the awarding of a doctorate to Goldhagen in the year he earned a masters in a section which was created solely to promote his privileged educational background (the existence of the section at all is already against Wikipedia's usual narrative format).  Maybe he's got a doctorate; the 1996 NYT article refers to him as "Mr."; but let's not give it a section!  Cheers DBaba (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Biography
While reading this article, I felt the biography has serious lacks, for example, it is not clear which course of study did Mr. Goldhagen attended. Moreover, there is little or no information on his professional carrer. As a complete outsider of the debate, it is for me of central importance to have an outlook of Mr. Goldhagen academic credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.202.149 (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Goldhagen. 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/20101123232008/http://www.memphis.edu/moch/counterpoint.htm to http://www.memphis.edu/moch/counterpoint.htm

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) 05:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Goldhagen. 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/20110604122755/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/01.09/GoldhagenWinsGe.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/01.09/GoldhagenWinsGe.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609204225/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/goldhagen-v-pius-xii-23 to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/goldhagen-v-pius-xii-23

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) 14:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)