Talk:James P. Hogan (writer)

Did Hogan do research for his books?
I edited the introductory material; Hogan cannot reasonably be compared to Clarke as someone who has done his research, since he doesn't. Gene Ward Smith 21:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't understand: who doesn't do research? Clarke didn't do research?? Both authors certainly researched physics and other sciences for their stories. In this they were similar, but that is WP:OR without a reference. David Spector (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP meant - in context of standard English - that Hogan didn't do scientific research.

I challenge the flat statement that Hogan did not do research in preparing his stories. Is there any evidence either way? I've seen plenty of physics and hints at mathematics in his books, especially in Genesis and Thrice Upon, which are my favorites. On the other hand, I can believe that he did no research into topics such as politics, since his politics in his later books were extreme, biased, and naive, to say the least, geology, and medicine. David Spector (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Non-Fiction works
Can anyone add some info about Hogan's non-fiction works? I believe they are named Mind Matters and Kicking the Sacred Cows.


 * I have not read the book Mind Matters, but I have read Kicking the Sacred Cow (not Cows as you have it). You can find a review of that book on this LiveJournal web-page. . Dmacgr 22 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial is a serious charge. Got anything solid ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.159.194 (talk • contribs)


 * Click on the link in the reference section and scroll down to the section on Hogan's website that is called "Free Speech Hypocrite." You note it is footnoted in the article. Shsilver 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, where does Hogan deny the holocaust? Any other cites ? Asking someone to be thorough and careful in their prosecution does not equal getting in bed with the defendant. The interpretation of that cite is fuzzy, got anything solid ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.147.134 (talk • contribs)


 * Here's a more extensive quotation from the cited source, with some notes added by myself. This is a commentary that was written by Hogan himself, and which is hosted on Hogan's own homepage. I don't see anything "fuzzy" about it.

 Have any of them actually read any of the Revisionists' works, studied their sources, or compared objectively and critically the Revisionists' arguments with the officially dispensed story they've been told? If not, how do they presume to form any judgment that can be called informed before lecturing the world at large?

I have. In fact it was Arthur Butz's book (see Home Page from the link above) that first aroused my interest in the subject many years ago now. I got to know Mark Weber quite well during the time that I lived in California, as a result of my following up various further researches. And I find their case more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says. So I suppose that expressing such skepticism makes me a guilty party too.

In June this year I'm scheduled to visit Germany as the Guest of Honor at a science-fiction convention in Lubeck, and I have no intention of withdrawing on this kind of account. So are S.F. writers now to risk being arrested when they step off a plane, simply for looking at two bodies of evidence and reaching a conclusion other than the one demanded? Well, we'll see, won't we?


 * Which bits of this interpretation do you disagree with, specifically? As for the "getting in bed with the defendant" comment, I'm not sure what you mean but bear in mind that this isn't a court of law - Wikipedia don't have to hold to those sorts of extreme standards of proof. And in any event, as far as I'm aware simply stating the belief that the Holocaust didn't happen is not illegal in the United States. So legal analogies aren't very useful. Bryan 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia don't have to hold to those sorts of extreme standards of proof." Lucky for you. But realize your willingness to champion the Daley administration puts you on extremely shaky ground. Your holocaust tie-in remains weak. I could edit your junk, but you'd just put it back in. And you'd feel all martyrized. Do you know Hogan personally ? Have you spoken with him ? I notice you cite someone else's work, not his or your own. One wonders what is your motivation. Perhaps you don't like his conclusions, and have to attempt undermine via smear. Don't forget that your other interests lay revealed around Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.147.134 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm afraid you've got me confused, I don't know what the "Daley administration" is, how I'm "championing" it, or what that has to do with this issue. As for the rest of your comments; I don't know Hogan personally (and if I did I couldn't use personal communications as a source anyway since that'd be original research), and the work I cited is indeed his own (it's one of his commentaries on his own homepage). I'd be fascinated to hear an analysis of my "other interests" on Wikipedia since a great deal of the things I work on are found by clicking Special:Random :) Bryan 07:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably entirely irrelevant by now, but a quick Googling I just did came up with . Are you Egyptoid by any chance? If so, at last the "Daley administration" thing makes some amount of sense. Though still not much - the only edits I can find relating to it is a minor edit on Richard J. Daley in March 2004 wherein I updated an image's markup. Still don't know what championing I was involved with or what it has to do with this matter. Bryan Derksen 04:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Slander
To place Hogan into the Holocaust DENIAL category is pure slander. He very carefully states that his study of the holocaust leaves him SKEPTICAL that the way it is generally reported and accepted is, in fact, the way it actually WAS. This doesn't mean that millions weren't killed. In fact, to call a reduction in the number of millions killed holocaust denial is to deny the title of holocaust to the millions who ARE still acknowledged as being killed - and it's his accusers who do this, NOT him. For in FACT, his references do NOT support holocaust denial, but rather a refinement of the NUMBERS killed and the WAY they were killed - not THAT they were killed. Tossing off, therefore, casual "obviousness" comments about labelling him a holocaust denier is indefensible, and merely an implication tactic, which goes along with all of the other implicatory accusations made against him by the holocaust accusers.

Ultimately, however, this whole thing is a red herring, for in fact Hogan is an excellent hard SF writer with LIBERTARIAN politics in his books, which pisses off the Left, because so many teens and college-age people read SF and so he could actually - gasp - influence their political thinking AWAY from liberalprogressivesocialistcommunism. So, in the typically dishonest undermining strategy found at the hands of the Left all over the world, they have created a false charge to slander him as a PERSON, because they can't refute his POLITICS. Wikipedia, therefore, is merely helping this politically-derived slander by allowing this false (through gross misrepresentations, innuendo and implication) "holocaust denier" accusation to stand without a balanced counter-argument existing next to the original accusation, and without requiring a limiting of the accusation itself to the specific and detailed facts of this highly charged topic - and THAT is the REAL shame going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.32.127 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 October 2006


 * What "balanced counter-argument" would you suggest? By the way, in the written medium it's libel, not slander. Bryan 08:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You say the 'number of millions' are in question, not that millions died, but the second link in his post says:

 On the other hand I, and Holocaust revisionists generally, emphatically reject the "extermination" claim and, by implication, any figure of Jewish dead (due to Nazi policies) in the millions.
 * I'm getting a vision...OF THE FUTURE! I see...I see a man.  He's saying something - He's declaring that millions of jews died, but of starvation and cholera caused by...Um, I can't quite tell, it looks like flying planes...allied bombing campaigns! Chris Croy 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And the vast number of historians (like 99%) would see your man as absolutely ... WRONG! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.62 (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

At least you can admit you are libeling the man. But again, your holocaust tie-in remains just as weak. I could edit your junk, but you'd just put it back in. And you'd feel all martyrized. - Egyptoid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.19.149 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

More Misc Holocaust
His site was redesigned and all of the links broke, so I fixed them. What's more interesting is that the linked Holocaust article no longer existed in any form on his new website. He makes an off-hand reference to it here(Scroll down to September 4), cryptically describing how he had merely objected to the imprisoning of revisionists and suggested the critics read the source material for themselves. He also links favorably to the Institute for Historical Review here.Chris Croy 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It still seems to be there, just scroll a little farther down or do a text search for "Free-speech Hypocrisy" to find it. It appears to be identical to the original on archive.org except the paragraph breaks are gone and it's been re-dated from February 22 2006 to March 15 2006. Bryan Derksen 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's odd. I was very thorough in my search for it.  The only explanation I can give is that the article was added back in at some point between February 1st and 16th.  That or I've gone senile far before my time. Chris Croy 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a very cursory search myself back when you first mentioned its disappearance and didn't find it then, so it might well have reappeared since. No need to book a room at the old folks' home yet. :) Bryan Derksen 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As one who knows Jim personally, I can confirm that his site was being redesigned around that time. May I also add that he indeed does not deny that the holocaust happened. For the record, neither is he a creationist as stated. He does believe that neo-Darwinianism is flawed, but is equally frustrated that the Intelligent Design debate has been taken over, largely, by the creationists. 88.151.80.245 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've elaborated on the description of his position on evolution a little more, is it more accurate now? Bryan Derksen 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The page is constantly being re-written with inaccuracies calling the author a holocaust denier. The person doing this is copying and pasting text into the edit page, even overwriting corrected links. Is this what Wikipedia is for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D Glynn (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I assume I'm "this person", since I did the only major copying and pasting currently in the talk page. You may say my name freely if you like, it's not a secret and it'll make conversation a lot clearer. Anyway, two questions. First, what's wrong with "copying and pasting text into the edit page"? Excerpts and quotations for the purpose of analysis is one of the more basic fair use rights. Second, which "corrected link" did I overwrite? I've removed the holocaust denier category since it is IMO a bit too categorical in this instance but I don't believe I've misrepresented Hogan's statement on the matter, as I explained in the section with the quotation you mentioned. Bryan Derksen 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He could also be referring to me since I'm the one who reverted his edits earlier today. Shsilver 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, though now that I check the two links in question I do still wonder what was "corrected" about his version - they both lead to the same commentary, one with paragraph breaks and the other without. What do you think of the wording tweaks and the decategorization I did subsequently, by the way? I'm trying not to go into a deep elaborate examination of Hogan's views since that strikes me as disproportionate, but I also don't want to oversimplify or omit significant examples. Bryan Derksen 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on the links, Brian. The wording tweaks in relation to Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design are appropriate and accurate. As to the inaccurate claims of Holocaust Denial reinserted by Shsilver, I'll wait to see what James has to say himself. D Glynn 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * When someone explains that he finds the arguments of Holocaust deniers to be more persuasive than claims that the Holocaust occurred, it is not inaccurate to state that he has espoused Holocaust denialShsilver 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The alleged HD passage has been moved here to discussion. Further reading of the cites reflects a view of skepticism of the discussion, not denial of any topics discussed..

Hogan has also espoused the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen in the manner described by mainstream historians, writing that he finds the work of Arthur Butz and Mark Weber to be "more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says." While such theories are seen by many to contradict his views on scientific rationality, he has repeatedly stated that these theories hold his attention due to the high quality of their presentation - a quality he believes established sources should attempt to emulate, but have instead resorted to attacking their originators. As such, they are consistent with the view that scientific theories should not be accepted simply because they are widely held (see, for instance, argument from authority). Has any work directly attributable to Hogan been a denial?

As further evidence, may I cite an article from his website. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible WP:POV and WP:OR
The passage ''In his earlier works he conveyed a sense of what science and scientists were about. His philosophical view on how science should be done comes through in many of his novels; theories should be formulated based on empirical research, not the other way around. If a theory does not match the facts, it is theory that should be discarded, not the facts.'' seems to be very POV, probably OR and also special pleading. This description could be used of several writers of hard science fiction.Autarch (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the essence of JPH's early works. There is no requirement that the subject's ideas be NPOV.  —EncMstr (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a requirement for articles to be NPOV. Autarch (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the neutral point of view policy. The passage you cited (...theories should be formulated based on...) is something the author has written.  If he had written All penguins must be killed immediately, it would be NPOV to describe the sentence as his work.  NPOV concerns coverage of the subject, not the subject itself.  It would be non-NPOV to reinterpret the sentence, or alter it, into something else the author did not intend.  Do you see the difference?  —EncMstr (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several problems with the passage as it stood:
 * 1) Given that the subject of the article advocated various controversial views, there is a danger that it could be read in a way that relates to those views. As it was, it read as though it was arguing for the viewpoint of the subject, though it wasn't clear if this was limited to his fiction. (Thus bringing WP:NPOV, [WP:OPED]] and WP:SYNTH into it.)
 * 2) The passage in question wasn't sourced - it summarised a view, but gave no source. (A reference to a science-fiction magazine article on him would do, but there was none, just a summary of something from the Giants Trilogy, which would probably breach WP:NOR too.)
 * 3) The passage is itself open to interpretation - is it saying that James P. Hogan was unique in holding these views (which would definitely be POV) or was it saying something else? Autarch (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

primary topic?
James P. Hogan is a disambiguation page pointing here and to some filmmaker. the filmmaker has a third the incoming links and a tenth the traffic and google presence. i'm inclined to move this article to the main topic and add a hatnote to the other guy, if no one objects. Adavies42 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to James P. Hogan Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

James P. Hogan (writer) → James P. Hogan — restructuring name as primary/single-other-use Adavies42 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For one of the JPH's to be the primary topic, something like at least 80% of the links would have to be to it. Since no one surpasses 33%, a disambiguation page is the appropriate choice.  —EncMstr (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * could you give your numbers for incoming links for each of them, and a source for the estimate of 80% as a requirement? i'm very new to editing at this level (i mostly just fix typos), and i don't see any numbers, even estimated ones, at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. i've taken a look at the Special:WhatLinksHere of each of them, and i'm not really sure which parts to count--a lot seem to be user pages, talk pages, fairly trivial lists, etc. Adavies42 (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept your numbers as reasonable. The most significant discussion I know of generally agreed the threshold is quite high is at Talk:Blue Mountains (New South Wales) where 60/40 is mentioned several times as not sufficient and 80/20 is.  The additional qualifier (such as (filmmaker), (composer), etc.) is especially apropos here.  —EncMstr (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * let me make sure i understand you correctly, as i find your reply a bit hard to follow. you agree that the author has 3x the incoming links as the filmmaker, but disagree, that this is sufficient grounds for considering him the primary topic?


 * btw, my ideal layout for this group of articles would be
 * James P. Hogan: the writer's page, "natural" name (not sure what the proper term is for the name under which a page is actually located, with no redirects involved)
 * James P. Hogan (writer): redirect to James P. Hogan
 * James Patrick Hogan (filmmaker): the filmmaker's page, "natural" name
 * James Patrick Hogan: redirect to James Patrick Hogan (filmmaker)
 * James P. Hogan (disambiguation): as is (modulo updating the links appropriately)
 * Adavies42 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct: None of the JPH articles have sufficient links or usage (hits) to be the primary topic.  Each should have a qualified article name.  The James P. Hogan page should be a disambiguation.  —EncMstr (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Incoming links is one of a number of metrics to bring to fore in primary topic consideration. Looking at reliable sources and using a search distinguisher to limit the search to each one, at least under this form of name (more about that later) the writer has about 200 times the number of mentions in books verses the filmmaker. To wit, a Google books search of <"James P. Hogan" "science fiction"> returns 849 results, verses <"James P. Hogan" filmmaker> which returns 8, 3 of which are actually to the writer, leaving 5 hits. Since filmmaker is likely a more limiting distinguisher I tried a whole bunch of other searches for the filmmaker such as bulldog, all with tiny results. A similar disparity is shown for a Google News archive search. Topping this off, more important than incoming links is incoming traffic and the writer gets about 70 hits a day verses about 5 for the filmmaker. This is all really irrelevant because there is no real need for disambiguation at all; the common name for the filmmaker is without the middle name at all (and it should be moved there per WP:UCN) and the common name for the writer is with the initial, here shown by this negative result verses the 849 previous showing of hits with the current title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversy section
This section is a mess of POV and links that do not support that POV without completely ignoring the nuances of what J.P. Hogan actually wrote; it needs to be reworked from scratch. Those who have strong opinions on these controversial topics, or who care about them more than the accuracy of this biography should refrain from editing this article -- that sort of editor seems to take over every controversial article and is the bane of Wikipedia. Enon (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take out the line from 1999 James Nicoll usenet blurb about 'brain-eater'. It's a direct source (not by 3rd party) in a Blog of posts, and not showing any relevance to Hogans life and a critic in 1999(?) by any apparent impact on his life.   While James Nicoll may be remembered for inventing the phrase and using it on a few authors, it looks like Anderson was the first, and there were enough others (at least Anderson, Hogan, Niven, and Card) to not be too notable in Hogans life.  Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed ?
I see a citation needed tag that seems to have been there many years now ... There's no section in TALK for that so I'm starting one muuuuuch later:

I can see minor support in the Guardian obituary, but am not seeing the mentioned 'many' of his works said .... -- "Voyage from Yesteryear" is mentioned in "Anarchy and the Law" -- "The Colonizing of Tharle" (short) for the anthology "Visions of Liberty" as a planet with no government ...but am not seeing this phrasing or a list of which items are meant.

So can anyone point to a publication that talks about this with more detail ? Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James P. Hogan (writer). 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/20070928081922/http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=37&cmd=sample&sample=79 to http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=37&cmd=sample&sample=79
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928081847/http://jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=78 to http://jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=78

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) 10:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)