Talk:Victor Davis Hanson

message: Could Victor Davis Hanson be described as a neoconservative? GCarty 13:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The clause "and is thus often quoted on warblogs such as Little Green Footballs" has an offensive PoV ring to it, my reason for removing it that there is no reason to suppose it is anything but gratuitous.  How 'bout a reason why it matters that he is quoted one particular place -- or for that matter, anywhere that agrees with him? As it says, "thus he is quoted" by those which could just as well be "as any fool can imagine w/o WP's help, he is quoted"...! --Jerzy (t) 23:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw a brief book in the classics section of my university library that was critical of some of Hanson's and Kagan's views, written by a professor of classics at Berkely - I believe.  I'll try to dig it up on my next trip to the library.  I didn't agree with most of what I read, but it was presented in a civil, scholarly manner, not ranting as above. --Jpbrenna 21:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neoconservative?

message: No ongoing discussion.  Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't even realized it was protected!  I was the one who nominated it.  This article does need some work.  Hopefully people will provide sourced criticisms of Hanson instead of reposting the same POV stock phrases over and over.--Jpbrenna 00:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find it --- not in a catalog search and not in a physical inspection of the classics section.  I know I saw the book once.  They are expanding the library and moving parts of the collection around, so maybe it's in a box somewhere.  If anybody else can find a copy of the work, go ahead and post.  I'll keep my eye out for it as well. --Jpbrenna 18:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: There is too much on this page regarding Hansons political views and his stance towards recent events. More attention should be paid to his role as a scholar, particularly the publishing of The Western Way of War which was revolutionary in the study of ancient Greek warfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.234.142.73 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 July 2005 UTC
::I completely agree.  This entire entry is an absolute joke.  One gets the impression from reading it that Hanson is more known for his political views than his scholarship in the field of military history, and I suspect this is deliberate on the part of those who wrote the entry on Hanson.  Singling out Carnage and Culture, and barely even mentioning "The Western Way of War" is odd, to say the least, particularly when you consider that the "Western Way of War" is one of the most influential works ever written on the history of ancient Greek warfare.  I have a distinct feeling this is a deliberate omission, employed to minimize the impact of Hanson's scholarship in the field of military history.  Reading the entry, one doesn't even get the smallest inkling that Hanson is one of the most influential classical military historians of the past 50 years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Western Way of War

message: Valid opposing viewpoints of Hanson based on facts should not be censored and deleted.
This censorship is a gross perversion of the spirit of Wikipedia! Valid cites have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.123.78 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 August 2005 UTC
:No they haven't. Which C-SPAN interview?  Not the one linked to below, which aired in 2005.  And who did the "accusing" in the 2003 interview (which you cite, but don't give in the sources section below).  Was it Brian Lamb, or was it an anonymous caller on a call-in show?  As for the La Raza article, which one?  What publication?   Was it from the National Council of La Raza, or an affiliated local group or community center with its own newsletter? Single author or corporately authored? Is it available online at http://www.nclr.org/? We need the info, including page numbers if applicable.  It's easiest if you select the appropriate template, copy/paste it, and then fill in the info. --Jpbrenna 05:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing viewpoints

message: The image was removed and deleted at the request of Craig M. Eisenberg, who owns the copyright and did not give permission for its use. Please don't upload images you don't personally own. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: in response to 
"...extreme rhetoric of the antiwar Left... antiwar = anti-Semitism... "lunatic Left"... "fundamentalists and censors"... "half-truths, spin, and conspiracy theories"..."
It's just hillarious -- he's like that the whole way through, with hate speech in every word.  But the reason I mention it here was that he didn't rebut "Gary Brecher", he merely launched a bad (ad-hominem we call it?) counterattack, drawing peoples' attention to all the things about Brecher that he thinks are bad (e.g cheering for 9/11)
* There was no rebuttal to the argument about Hanson's farm being welfare state socialism while publically claiming to support private enterprise
* There was no rebuttal to the claim that Hanson's analysis of the first gulf war was uninformed
* There was no rebuttal to the claims of inaccuracy in Hanson's coverage of the second gulf war, (eg. "no attack on the Sunni Triangle")
* There was no rebuttal to the claim that Hanson's comparison of Iraq and Malaya was misleading
* There's not even a rebuttal to "what Hanson and morons like him won't admit is that short of genocide, there is no military solution to urban guerrilla warfare" -- presumably as a pro-war military expert who's keen to take the US into Iraq, Hanson is claiming that he does have a solution to urban guerrilla warfare?
So it's a bit oddd to list that article as a reply or rebuttal, when it' just a load of personal attacks. "yeah, well anyone who criticizes me is a loony, nyeh!!!" Ojw 13:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord, your attack on Hanson's rebuttal is as pathetic as you claim his rebuttal is.  Nothing but ad hominem?  Sure thing. But I guess such is to be expected from an individual who claims Hanson's reply is full of "hate speech"(a euphemism the left seems to employ against anyone who disagrees with them), and then lauds someone who fantasized about burning down Hanson's crops. And speaking of Gary Brecher, his attack on Hanson is so laughable, one wonders why Hanson even bothers to mention it.  Pointing out Brecher's insane moral equivalencies was rebuttal enough. For crying out loud, Brecher, in the title of his hilarious "piece"(yeah, it's a piece of something allright)calls Hanson a traitor, yet you have the nerve to claim it is Hanson engaging in nothing but ad hominem attacks? I would call you a raging hypocrite, but I don't like stating the obvious.   Brecher deserved to be called out for his insane views in Hanson's  piece, and that is the only reply he deserved.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice rebuttal

message: We seem to be having an "edit kerfuffle" over two external links. (It does not rise to the level of an edit war, IMO.) I thought I'd try to start a discussion of them here. Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why this link belongs in an article about Prof. Hanson. CWC(talk) 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Strikes me as a useful summary of many of VDH's works. (Parts are quite prophetic.) If someone asked me for one essay to see what VDH says about modern military affairs, I'd send them to this one. (This is not the conclusion I expected to reach. Darn.) CWC(talk) 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of external links is absolutely silly.  I could list  dozens of individuals who have written far more controversial things on various political issues than Hanson and not find one single "opposing viewpoint" link in the external links section.  The external links section is not designed as a forum to balance out the views of the subject of the entry.  It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above five that an entry on Hanson would include a link to Hanson's website, but to include links from random individuals is so transparently designed to attack Hanson that the claims of doing so for the sake of objectivity are hilarious on their face.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.223 (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Those external links

message: I've just edited the lede to say that VDH is a former classics professor, as explained just a few paragraphs below.
Here's the resulting lede, with added color:
:Victor Davis Hanson (born 1953 in Fowler, California of Swedish descent) is a military historian, political essayist and former Classics professor, best known as a scholar of ancient warfare as well as a commentator on modern warfare. He is also a farmer (growing raisin grapes) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism.
I think the text in red are superfluous and should be deleted. What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lede

message: He also disagrees with environmental explanations, as put forth by authors such as Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel.
I don't want to step into 'Original Research' territory, but I wonder where this has come from? Did VDH himself explicitly criticise Diamond's idea? Or is it an assumption by whoever wrote that?
The reason I mention it is that - if my understanding is correct - Diamond's view is not necessarily in conflict with VDH. In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond acknowledges that cultural differences can have an impact on the relative development of different societies. But he argues that this doesn't explain how different peoples came to have different cultures in the first place. So he's talking about influences further back than VDH. You could reconcile the two views, I think, unless VDH has actually said somewhere that he doesn't agree with Diamond. I didn't see a reference for that. --DudeGalea 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: VDH reviewed Diamond's book "Collapse" (and also mentions "Guns, Germs and Steel") here. He definitely does not agree with Diamond. Nathanm mn 02:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came here to add a note that VDH's latest post contains a long argument against Diamond. And then I saw that you'd added yours a few days ago. I agree, that settles it. --DudeGalea 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about resurrecting this, but in Carnage and Culture, Hanson does address Diamond's work, however, I don't have my copy near.--Mtnerd 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental factors

message: Unless this person usually goes by or is referred to as "Victor Davis Hanson" or "VDH", it seems inappropriate to continually use all three names in reference to him in the article. Consider somebody like Lisa Marie Presley, who is frequently referred to by all three names, somebody like Michael Jackson, who is frequently referred to with the surname and first name, and Madonna, who is commonly referred to by only her first name. We don't refer to LMP as "Lisa Marie" or "presley,' nor Lisa Presley. Continuing, we don't refer to Michael Jackson as "Jackson" or "Michael", and certainly not "Michael Joseph Jackson". Lastly, we don't refer to Madonna as "Madonna Ciccone" or "Madonna Louise." I don't think I need to give additional examples (don't get me started on Alexander Siddig). Anyways, I have removed a couple instances where people had used the term "VDH" to refer to him. In American English, it is common to use somebody's last name to refer to them when it is obvious who one is referring to. So in the article, "Hanson" should be fine. I think our readers are smart enough to figure out who the name references. ... aa:talk 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: names in prose

message: The NPOV template strongly suggested there were POV problems with this article, but none were apparent when I read it, so I looked into the article history to see what I could discover about who added it and why.
 was added over two months ago (11:19, 20 November 2006 UTC) by 
71.111.119.60 (talk)  (contribs), who was blocked the next day for vandalism, and blocked again two days after that for evading the block as 71.111.115.155 (talk)  (contribs).
Judging the encyclopedic health of the article to be good, and the source of the tag to be spurious (in the extreme ;-D), I have removed it.   — Athænara   ✉  00:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Perhaps it's been edited a lot since the above comments, but right now this article might have been written by Hanson himself; it is simply a brief exposition of his views, with not even a cursory attempt at setting him in context or presenting the views of anyone who has disagreed with his opinions, or criticised them in any way.  I should point out that I have never read any of Hanson's books, but as a regular WP contributor and editor I can see that this article is, in its present state, a dog.  It is blatantly partisan, and I will put the template back immediately. Lexo (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not even remotely "good". In fact it is a complete joke.  More time is spent discussing Hanson's political views than is spent on the undisputed fact that Hanson is one of the most influential military historians of the 20th and 21st centuries.  You would be hard pressed to find a military history class that covers the ancient world at any major univesity that doesn't have one of Hanson's books as required reading.    In fact, there is not a single sentence in this entire piece of garbage entry that even remotely indicates the scope of his influence.  Rather it would seem the author spent more time casting aspersions on Hanson because he supported the war in Iraq.  This piece, as the British would say, is rubbish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: POV template

message: I see nothing POV in this article; in fact, it seems to be good-but-not-great as far as Wikipedia articles go. Responding to User:Lexo: the article supplies enough context, and carries several (mostly silly) criticisms in the External links section. Remember: at Wikipedia, we need WP:Reliable Sources for negative claims in a WP:BLP. I've removed the POV tag, and made some other improvements. Cheers, CWC 12:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not even remotely "good". In fact it is a complete joke.  More time is spent discussing Hanson's political views than is spent on the undisputed fact that Hanson is one of the most influential military historians of the 20th and 21st centuries.  You would be hard pressed to find a military history class that covers the ancient world at any major univesity that doesn't have one of Hanson's books as required reading.    In fact, there is not a single sentence in this entire piece of garbage entry that even remotely indicates the scope of his influence.  Rather it would seem the author spent more time casting aspersions on Hanson because he supported the war in Iraq.  This piece, as the British would say, is rubbish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.97 (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2009

message: The following sentence was added to the article a few weeks ago:
:Hanson is also noted for his historical essay regarding the Cold War, and the USA's foreign policy of the time, the 'Containment' Policy.
I requested a citation, but none has appeared, so I've moved it here for discussion. Does anyone know of a significant essay by VDH about the Cold War? If so, could you please add something (either here or in the article) with more details? The title of the essay would be a good start ...
Cheers, CWC 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay regarding the Cold War?

message: Hi my name is Juanita Diane Hanson  I was born in Idaho in 1947 my father was Francis Leroy hanson he was born at Fort  Mc Dermott on the 8January 1898 he used many dates for the Army the other dates he uses are * January 1900 or 8 January 1906 he served in the  South Pacific.   Army serial number is 20955132  his parents were 
 father  :  John Gabriel Hanson born 1876 Califorina died in Humbolt Nevada 1920
 mother: (Mary) Millicent'Millie Caryle 1800 Quincey Califorina died 1950 Winnemucca
  my Grand father had two more brothers  I thinks one was Chisthoper and the other I am not sure about
if you are my relation my email is hanson j757@gmail.com
 Thanks Juanita  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.134.186 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Hanson in america 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Victor Davis Hanson.  I managed to add archive links to 8 , out of the total 8 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.
Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct.  If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with  to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further.  Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether.  Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources modified on [[Victor Davis Hanson]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Victor Davis Hanson. 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/20061107094931/http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/08/29/back_to_the_future.php to http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/08/29/back_to_the_future.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125054349/http://www.victorhanson.com/Author/index.html to http://www.victorhanson.com/Author/index.html
*Added  tag to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWVjYTYwZDZjZTJjNzc5MjViMzQyOWJkZmFiZmMwMjE%3D
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120713205844/http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson122304.html to http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson122304.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) 22:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On or October 27, 2016, anonymous editor 171.66.114.11 made a series of changes that are either a clever form of vandalism or a display of gross incompetence when he/she added fake references throughout the article in the form of [nn].  Maybe they were intended to be links to the actual numbered references as they existed at the time, maybe not, but the result is a gawd-awful mess.  The easy way out is to simply delete them, as I have now done, because as soon as a single reference is added or deleted earlier in the article, the static numbers in brackets become meaningless. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed-up references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Victor Davis Hanson. 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/20120213081306/http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071208.html to http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071208.html
*Added  tag to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/6/2006_6_24.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716014022/http://pdf285.tealpdf.org/23v3jx_the-end-of-sparta-a-novel.pdf to http://pdf285.tealpdf.org/23v3jx_the-end-of-sparta-a-novel.pdf
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) 03:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was this written by his or agent? Wikipietime (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: This article has an insane amount of self-sourced text. This needs to be trimmed ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP number just restored a massive amount of self-sourced text (which I deleted) and deleted a bunch of reliably sourced text (which I added). The IP number inaccurately suggests that the content which was removed was sourced to secondary sources.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious problem: Remove self-sourced text 

message: As it stands now, the first paragraph says he is a traditional conservative, then next paragraph jumps ahead in time and says he is a trump guy (not usually what people think of when they hear 'traditional conservative') and then the next paragraph jumps back in time and talks about people describing him as a neoconservative due to his iraq war stuff.
I know this is all RS, and that it's a challenge due to the evolution, as it were, of VD Hanson's political views, but it's a bit of whiplash to to see all these apparently contradictory labels applied so close together.
Is it possible to reorganize in some way? If nothing else, maybe a chronological approach? ie intro, iraq, obama, trump?  And maybe de-emphasize the use of all these labels which are so apparently contradictory? Or just say in the intro, "despite branding himself as a traditional conservative, VDH has supported neoconservatives and trump as well" (but in better wikipedia language)  
Thanks to all the hardworking editors for keeping these articles going! 131.114.9.81 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  time to reorganize political views section? 

message: While interviewing Lou Dobbs on Cspan's After Words, Hansen said referring to the Covid-19 virus that "There is a consensus that it came out of a lab." Lou Dobbs didn't even agree to this. Please keep this for the record of his beliefs and willingness to lie. 
https://www.c-span.org/video/?475466-1/after-words-lou-dobbs
125.25.137.153 (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pushing a lie about the Covid-19 virus on Cspan's After Words 

message: , please note that you have added new content to the article which has been challenged.  It shouldn't be restored until there is a consensus for inclusion .  The problem with this is the guilt by association aspect and more critically WEIGHT.  I think this is especially true given the American Freedom Alliance appears to be too minor a group to even have a Wiki article.  The SLPC is the only source in the article trying to associate Hanson with anti-islam views.  It does this by saying he was a keynote speaker for a groupt the SLPC claims is something.  That means Hanson is once removed from the group.  Second, this is something that happened in 2017.  It doesn't appear to have had any staying power thus we have a weight issue.  The SLPC is an activist organization so we need to be careful when they are the only source for an entire type of claim in a BLP article.  Certainly the SPLC has proven to be biased and less than reliable.  If they are the only source then we shouldn't include it. Springee (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keynote speaker 

message: V.D. Hanson and writings for The Epoch Times where i first discovered him, no mention? why ?. 98.22.98.102 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  hanson connection to epoch times newspaper? 

message: This label intends to paint Hanson as not towing the line or an enemy of the new left.  It’s subtle but it’s there and a dangerous trend in labeling the institutions.  That he is affiliated with Conservative institutions is enough, new-speak is not needed to signal those who are opposed.  There is such a broad misunderstanding of conservatives that such labels intend to imply, “ you know, the extremists”.  This is wrong and diminishes Wikipedia. 98.207.223.17 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If the institutions specialize in spreading misinformation motivated by their ideology, then it is a correct term.  know Hanson from his anti-scientific bullshit about COVID-19, which was obviously motivated by free-market ideology. For some reason, it is not mentioned in this article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  “ideologically-oriented institutions” 

message: Hey everyone, I just made a couple of bold edits taking out the Democratic Criticism section.  Knowing what I do about the article subject it could likely be rebuilt, but as it existed, it was basically just a bunch of his opinion columns summarized in less flattering ways.  I think we should probably do the same with the "Obama Criticism" section.  Perhaps some will disagree with me, but just because an writer or talking head said something does not make it notable.  We really should look for some recognition in other reliable sources that people took notice.  As ever, happy for others to disagree.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many primary sources 

message: It is particularly unusual to retire from an academic career at the age of 51. Some background context needs to be added. What happened that precipitated his early retirement from CSU Fresno?Dogru144 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Early retirement