Talk:Paul Goodman/Archive 1

message: I made an edit recently removing the statement that Goodman identified himself as a pederast, and a few related remarks.  This edit was reverted without contacting me.  The cited reference to the reversion is not about Paul Goodman. I think I have read almost everything Goodman wrote, and I know his biographer Taylor Stoehr fairly well. I recall no statement by Goodman to the effect that he self-identified as a pederast.  He identified himself as bisexual.  The term pederast is commonly seen as pejorative and is in Goodman's case, I would say, at the least misleading.  Goodman was attracted to younger men sexually, as well as to women, and he may well have "had sex with" people under 18, but no fair assessment of Goodman's rather omnivorous sexual nature would justify saying that he was, or self-identified as, a pederast. I'm a newbie on Wikipedia, but from looking cursorily it appears that the poster who put this "pederast" word up may be into value-laden remarks and has an "agenda" of some sort relating to people's sexuality. In any event, I suspect that nothing I say would affect the poster's view or approach, and I have NO interest in getting into a lengthy dispute. I simply caution readers of this article, should they see this post, that the article as of 1/6/07 is quite a bit "off base" on this point. To close, I'll also say that the entire article is rather superficial and has an incpmplete and unbalanced view of Goodman's work and career; the pederast line was, again as I see it, flat-out wrong.  That's it, I'm out of here. I don't know if this post will last -- I made an effort.
Thomasrodd 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pederast?

message: Have just read the above comment and agree almost entirely. The intention behind including the pederast reference can only be interpreted as malicious and as such does not belong on Wikipedia. Am not deleting the book reference as I presume it legitimately exists, but that fact does not make the pederast reference either true or justifiable. Please make an effort to keep personal feelings out of Wikipedia articles. 83.191.50.3 20:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PG did not aim to please. The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality mentions his propositioning students and Paglia considers him vulnerable to the modern child sex laws. They both corroborate the citation. I will reinstate the mention - and let me add that it is done in anything but malice. Have you read his Stories from Camp? Haiduc 20:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made some modifications to indicate that his relevance to the topic of pederasty went beyond the specifics of his relationships, and to avoid the appearance of disparagement. Perhaps that will be more satisfactory. I am not sure why you bring up the issue of legality, pederasty is factored on the dynamics of the relationship, not on its legality. His relationships with youths may well have been legal and pederastic at the same time. Haiduc 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: deleting offensive reference

message: Have just checked out the link you kindly included (encyclopedia) and found the following citation:
Goodman never hid his homosexuality and his open propositioning of students tended to make his appointments at the various colleges where he taught controversial and shortlived.
That in itself does not justify the pederast reference. Unless we take the students referred to as being under-aged, but in no case would they be considered "boys" as in the dictionary definition. Please consider my previous suggestion. 83.191.73.149 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: corroborating citations

message: Appreciate your constructive attitude and thanks for the meaningful communication. 83.191.73.149 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: While I realise that some might consider it more appropriate to organise such a list chronologically or alphabetically, I have added a few of the more important books written by PG (not included in the text) ahead of the others originally included on said list. Likewise, I have placed the book written by his 'official' biographer immediately below PG's own works. 83.180.174.41 00:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: book list

message: Thanks to the meaningful interaction out there in the field which resulted in a significant reorganisation of the elements under discussion, I'm pleased to see that closure has been reached on this hitherto unfinished business. Interaction at the contact boundary will always lead to a creative adjustment provided that awareness is present (and not interrupted by any mechanisms of adjustment, namely, confluence, introjection, retroflection, projection and egotism). Technopat 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: meaningful communication (again)

message: This article, as of 1/29/07, is unfair. It still looks from the discussion like the principal contributor wants to include judgmental and skewed stuff about Goodman's sex life (i.e., common law" wives are perfectly legal and ordinary, so why the mention?), and to continue to argue a proclivity by Goodman for "pederasty" and man-boy love. For anyone who is familiar with Goodman's life and work, and not grinding some axe, this is factually inaccurate and totally-off-base. It may be fair argument, but it has has no place in a purportedly objective encyclopedia biography. If this an example is what Wikipedia can readily become when a person is grinding such an axe, then it is a grave disappointment. Thomasrodd 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfair

message: Slightly dismayed to find that, just when I thought we were making headway towards producing a meaningful article through meaningful communication, along comes the instigator of my initial involvement to make the article on PG more even-handed and almost makes me feel like giving up. 
While I agree, once again, with most of the points raised, I am in no way qualified to add anything more constructive to the article other than bibliography and trying to ensure that it does not degenerate into a slanging match. As I haven't as yet been able to read much of PG's work, apart from some essays, and none of his fictional stuff, there is not much else I can do.
Better thoughts prevailed, and I would like to be a bit more constructive about this and request someone who is fortunate enough to know PG's biographer, Taylor Stoehr (and without falling into the trap of including original research), to contribute further to ensuring that future generations are able to learn about PG's vision of society. In my humble op. Paul Goodman deserves a well-written article on Wikipedia. Technopat 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the best way would be to establish a dialog with Dr. Stoehr on this page. If he could read the article and critique it and suggest changes as well as sources, that might be the least imposition on him and provide a solid foundation for expanding the article. Haiduc 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interaction at the contact boundary

message: Mnay thanks for your constructive contribution. I have however, taken the liberty of deleting your email address from this page as it might just fall into the category of Wikipedia risks. I apologise for taking it into my own hands, and will of course revert it if you so wish. Regards, --Technopat 16:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the sources on this are skimpy, the theme of pederasty (I am using the term in a neutral, non-judgmental way) is not infrequent in his work. In the "Breakup of Camp" there is one such story, and in Ian Young's anthology there is a poem with pederastic overtones. There is no reason to suspect that PG ever behaved unethically towards any boys (He, of all people!) but there is no reason to deny what seems to have been a source of erotic energy for him. How would you like to address this issue? Haiduc 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: recent developments

message: Maybe it would be more elegant to separate PG's fictional and non-fictional work even more clearly, referring to it in whichever order the experts consider more important, prolific or what-have-you (essays, poems, novels, and so on). Thus, where we have the following:
...During his life he wrote on a wide variety of subjects; including education, Gestalt Therapy, city life and urban design (the influential classic Communitas (1947)), children's rights, politics, literary criticism, and many more. ...
we could also do something similar with the following sentence:
...He was at home with the avant-garde and with classical texts, and his fiction often mixes formal and experimental styles. The subject matter and style of Goodman's short stories have been an influence on those of Guy Davenport....
While I have your attention, I would also like to propose moving his description of himself politically, sexually and professionally to the end of that same paragraph, that is, it would read as follows:
...early 70s. Less widely known is his role as a co-founder  ... Politically ...
My rationale here is that if one reads an article on Mozart, Churchill or whoever, one would not expect to find their own opinion of themselves (however high that may be or even how polemic they might be) to figure in the introductory paragraph. Feedback, please! Technopat 12:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please apply your ideas. They are a lot less ham-fisted than mine and I look forward to having matters shown rather than described, a mark of good writing from what I hear. Haiduc 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take that as an incentive to proceed, but I insist that I do not know enough about PG to contribute more constructively than trying to balance the article out. Please help with input. I'll wait another 24 hours (more or less!) to allow other time zones to catch up! Technopat 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a bit more constructive?

message: Sorry 'bout that. I got carried away by the sheer volume of small modifications! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Technopat (talk • contribs) 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sorry - forgot to fill in edit summary for last edit

message: I posted here almost a year ago, the first discussion entry.  I've read and re-read all of Goodman's works.  I know his biographer, Taylor Stoehr, and have read all of his published articles on Goodman, and also many memoirs, articles, and studies dealing with Goodman.  I'm a Goodman fan, warts and all. (Goodman was the first to point to his faults, and I think I understand them as well as a reader can).
So far the picture of Goodman painted by this Wikipedia article is uneven, omitting entirely many important aspects of his life and work, emphasizing and even exaggerating fairly minor matters, and overall painting an incomplete and even distorted picture of an admittedly complex and contradictory man.
Additionally, the article has, in one big area of Goodman's life -- sex -- a tone that is critical and unfair.  Goodman was compulsively sexual and continually cruised for young men.  (He wrote lots of great poems about this topic).  He was also a devoted family and household man and father -- with a tolerant and free-thinking wife!   This article's emphasis on this aspect of his life, and using inaccurate and loaded words like "pederasty", or "boys" for his younger sex partners, incorrectly moves the tone of the article toward "Goodman was a child molester."  The edits over the last year shown this issue in the development of this article.
In light of the above, I feel the call to go in and try to clean up this article, to make it more accurate -- and especially to improve the language on the sex/love side. If anyone reading this thinks I should not, let me know. 
Thomasrodd (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret that I have not put much time into this article, as I have been busy with other Wiki-tasks.  I do agree that the article needs work, and I welcome your willingness, Thomas.  If I can be of assistance, please ask. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, Thomas. SethTisue (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, one way that you can text to the article without it being visible to the reader is to use a "hidden comment".  This adds content within parameters that hides it unless the edit box is open.  You can add hidden comments by using the 5th button from the right in the row of edit buttons above the edit box. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you're pretty sure an edit will be controversial, you should probably just go ahead and make it; see WP:BOLD. If you want to put suggested language out for comment, you can do that right here on the talk page.  SethTisue (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Thomasrodd, welcome back to this article and thanks for participating! Have also been neglecting this article, but now that I see some constructive work has/will be done, will watch future progress with interest. RepublicanJacobite's suggestion is possibly too complicated - no offence meant! I agree with SethTisue and think the ideal place is this very discussion page, which is for discussing article content as opposed to the subject/person in question. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I want to try improving this article again.

message: Although I don't doubt that it's true, have removed the following:
Some of his essays first appeared in <I>politics</I>, the magazine edited during the 1940s by Dwight Macdonald, who valued Goodman's insights while detesting Goodman's prose style.
If anyone can reference it, please do so. Thanks, --Technopat (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have found a reference for the first part of the above, so am returning that bit to article.--Technopat (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed good faith edit - unreferenced 

message: Paul had two wives, Virginia and Sally, and children, and now grandchildren. 71.183.80.186 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives 

message: I have made some changes to the text to make it clear that the individual "novels" The Grand Piano, The State of Nature, and The Dead of Spring were later subsumed as Books I, II,  and III of The Empire City. I have also deleted the characterization of the latter as "epic," which seems vague and not very informative. 850 C (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Empire City 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Paul Goodman. 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/20070107182059/http://www.laingsociety.org:80/colloquia/inperson/davidcooper/index.htm to http://laingsociety.org/colloquia/inperson/davidcooper/index.htm
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 23:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 02:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Re: Goodman's book, Kafka's Prayer. 
There should be a hyperlink to this book, which this article mentions, as there is now an article in wikipedia on it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.82.0.173 (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Kafka's Prayer

message: His father left the family prior to his birth, making Paul their fourth and last child, after Alice (1902) and Percival (1904).
I don't know about the missing child but it should somehow be explained why it is not mentioned by name, else it looks like we just can't count.
He died of a heart attack at his farm in New Hampshire just before his 61st birthday.
According to the dates in the sidebar there are more than five weeks between his death and his date of birth. One wouldn't call that 'just before.--2A02:8109:8940:47BC:91C:82F5:F48D:4A4B (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not add up 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Paul Goodman. 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/20110714084150/http://www.michaelzwise.com/articleDisplay.php?article_id=17 to http://www.michaelzwise.com/articleDisplay.php?article_id=17
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121192030/http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/History/WC_Period/Reactions_to_Warren_Report/Reactions_of_left/Bio_of_Macdonald.html to http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/History/WC_Period/Reactions_to_Warren_Report/Reactions_of_left/Bio_of_Macdonald.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817100715/http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2010/397_543.pdf to http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2010/397_543.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027153405/http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/GoodmanPaul.htm to http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/GoodmanPaul.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041216093515/http://www.blacksparrowbooks.com/titles/goodman.htm to http://www.blacksparrowbooks.com/titles/goodman.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) 10:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It doesn't seem necessary to mention the reprints in the article, but there are sources on the PM Press 2010 reprints already in the article if needed and Taylor Stoehr's early 1990s reprints are mentioned here. czar 00:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprints