Talk:Paul Goodman/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Paul Goodman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Pederast?

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)

deleting offensive reference

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)

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)

Please accept my apologies for the accusation of maliciousness - it was not intended to be personal and was more directed at content on an anonymous screen than at an editor. I do however feel that the reference to pederast is both offensive and gratuitous, and however much someone can considers PG's vulnerability to modern child sex laws, it does not prove him guilty of violating such laws. I have not read the book cited (Stories from Camp), but would suggest that any reference PG makes in that book on the subject be quoted in the text and in the context of said book. 83.191.92.142 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

corroborating citations

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)

Thank you

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

book list

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)

That reference to Goodman's self-description

Some people have already talked about a section that used to be in this entry, which said that Goodman described himself as a pederast. You can see it right at the top of this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Goodman_%28writer%29&oldid=97436244

A few people said this was just not true. Then someone put it back because it was "cited material" or something like that. Someone else said he was leaving in the reference because it probably exists. Finally it got deleted again.

But I was curious about it so I looked for the book. It's by Parker Rossman, it's called "Sexual experience between men and boys." It is copyrighted 1976.

Well, well. Turns out that this "cited material" is a STORY --it's made up --it's fiction. It's Rossman's "reconstruction" --that's what he calls it --of what Goodman thought about himself. It doesn't use Goodman's words. It uses Rossman's words. I'm not "interpreting" Rossman. I'm saying what Rossman says right there on page 92.

There's chapters in War and Peace where Tolstoy makes up thoughts that Napoloeon had or might have had, or something --but I don't think it's a great idea to put that kind of material up at the top of the entry for Napoleon. It's "cited material" --but that doesn't make it real.

"Cited material"??????? Is this supposed to help Wikipedia?

My 2¢ anyway. Rubadubdub 01:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Two cents used to go a long way. I would ask you to consider that the way Rossman uses the language is not as you interpret it. When he refers to "the story above" is is not in the sense that the preceding passage was in itself a made up story, but in the sense that it is a life story. That life story is not recounted by Rossman, but only paraphrased. It is Paul Goodman who is revealing himself in that passage, from his writings in a number of works. In that same paragraph Rossman says, of Goodman, "His views, which are summarized here, can be found in Five Years (1969), Making Do (1962), Parents' Day (1952), Growing Up Absurd, and various articles. Also of interest are other novels of his which are listed in the bibliography."

So this is a summary, a duly referenced one, which does not strike me at all as an improper source of material for an article. Haiduc 02:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this comment by Haiduc is completely irrelevant to the actual thing we're talking about. The sentence which got added then deleted said "Goodman described himself as a pederast" --but there's no evidence that Goodman ever described himself as a pederast. We're not talking about "a summary of views" --we're talking a statement of what he supposedly said about himself. If the sentence said "In a reconstruction of Goodman's inner thoughts, Parker Rossman presents Goodman as describing himself as a pederast, although there is no evidence that he ever actually did" --then the sentence would be right. But who would think this belonged at the top of his WP entry.

The statement "this is a summary, a duly referenced one" is simply totally completely absolutely wrong about the sentence "Goodman described himself as a pederast." Either Goodman did or Goodman didn't describe himself as a pederast --and Rossman doesn't say that he did describe himself that way --Rossman imagines that he might have described himself this way in his inner thoughts.

Let's remember that Parker Rossman's reconstruction has Goodman saying "I am this" or "I am that" --but Rossman is imagining what Goodman MIGHT have said about himself on the basis of what his VIEWS were. This should be completely obvious, and no amount of irrelevant justifications can change it. Rubadubdub 13:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is imagining anything here, hopefully, least of all Rossman. But I may have misread your earlier comment. I would agree that putting "Goodman described himself as a pederast" at the head of the article is inappropriate. For one thing it is inflammatory. For another, that is a conclusion that the reader should be able to draw for himself by reading the article. Haiduc 14:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to keep the central point in mind here --the point isn't "is this an inflammatory sentence" --the point is "is this an ACCURATE sentence" --and it's just not ACCURATE to say "Goodman described himself as a pederast."

To make it clear --let's say Goodman lived in a country that hated Zoroastrians and put them in a jail --and let's say that Goodman practised Zoroastrian rituals and believed the Zoroastrian Catechism (I'm just making up this example of course) --but Goodman never SAID "I am a Zoroastrian" because that would get him tossed in prison. He never "described himself as a Zoroastrian" because the anti-Zoroastrian death squads would come after him if he did. So --it WOULD be accurate to say "Goodman practised Zoroastrian rituals." But it would NOT be accurate to say "Goodman described himself as a Zoroastrian." But you're saying that a reader should be able to draw the conclusion that "Goodman described himself as a Zoroastrian" --but there's no basis for that conclusion --Rossman read his mind and presented him as thinking "I am a Zorastrian" --thinking that to himself. Maybe he did --maybe he didn't --we have no way to know that --and it's not a conclusion that anyone can draw from the evidence.

I think we agree one hundred percent about this --and I can't see how we could ever disagree about it. Rubadubdub 15:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, we seem to be saying the same thing. Haiduc 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ja, oui, si, da --the important thing is that we agree now. Whether we said the same thing before now --that's not an important question to you or me I think --The big thing is that we got to a perfect consensus (not sure how to spell that). Rubadubdub 18:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Surprised to see that the reference subject to the above controversy - which seemed to have been resolved constructively over a year ago - is right back where it doesn't belong, that is, in the article lead. As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section I have moved it down to a section of the article which might explain the context in which the supposed self-description - unreferenced, and as such, subject to being deleted forthwith - was made. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the fact that someone keeps insisting on placing it as an introductory element to the article can only be interpreted as malicious. Feedback? --Technopat (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

meaningful communication (again)

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)

Unfair

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Goodman_%28writer%29/Comments"

Interaction at the contact boundary

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)

I think now that I was wrong in doing my original edit without contacting the original writer. I apologize. I agree with technopat that PG deserves a well-written article on Wikipedia. I sent an e-mail to Taylor Stoehr, directing him to this discussion page, and asking if he has any interest in responding in the discussion, or in trying a revision of the article. I appreciate the references to the contact boundary, etc., as I still find PG's writing in Gestalt Therapy challenging and exciting after nearly forty years. I haven't the time or stomach for the conflicts that the pederasty comments portend, and that I gather are inherent risks in the Wikipedia process. Thomasrodd 14:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To: technopat (and other interested readers). I hope I am doing the right thing in posting this information here. I tried to e-mail technopat directly but could not find an address. Taylor Stoehr e-mailed me that he would be interested in contributing to try to get a balanced article on PG on Wikipedia. Taylor is Goodman's literary executor and biographer. He has no experience on Wikipedia and would like some guidance as to how he should proceed. I am also a novice and have no basis for giving good guidance. I know there are guidelines posted, etc., but in light of the current status of the article, I think some specific guidance to Taylor would be very helpful to him. Can you do that, possibly? Thanks. Thomasrodd 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

recent developments

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)

I have looked over briefly the history of this article and it appears that a fairly simple and neutral piece was at some point added to with several changes tending to give the impression that PG was an advocate and practicioner of pederasty and man-boy love. This impression is simply wrong and unfair, and is, to people familar with PG and his work, not even fairly debatable. Taylor Stoehr has told me, after looking over the discussion on this page, that he would not have time to participate in trying to correct this misimpression. Perhaps someone else interested in presenting a good article on PG on Wikipedia will take that project up at some point. Thomasrodd 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

a bit more constructive?

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)

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)

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)

more thoughts on being constructive

I just came across the following anonymous posting on the talk page corresponding to the Guy Davenport article. I think it sums up what is needed on the PG article:

Scope and Purpose

As a former student of Professor Guy Davenport's when I was at the University of Kentucky (1965-1968; 1971-1976) and as a friend and correspondent of Guy's up to his death in January 2005, I find it necessary to ask in this discussion forum of the Free Encyclopedia of Wikipedia why the contributors to this page are permitted to bicker over the sexuality of a writer or the sexualities of characters in his stories? It would be more interesting to learn about the many accomplishments of this translator, writer, painter, and perhaps above all, teacher and conversationalist. Professor Davenport said to me the summer of 1974 soon after the publication of Tatlin!, his first book of stories, during one of our many walks from his office in the Patterson Office Tower on the UKY campus to his apartment a mile and a half north of campus near the Bell Court neighborhood of Lexington, "My God, I hope my readers don't think that I behave in the same way as Adriaan, Kaatje, and Bruno ..." referring to three imiginary characters in 'The Dawn in Erewhon' first published in Tatlin! (NY: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1974).

extract from anonymous posting, copied and pasted by Technopat 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am all for expanding the scope of this article, something to be done by someone other than me since my knowledge of Goodman is skimpy, the result of reading some of his minor works, dabbling in his "Empire City" and reading about him in Parker Rossman's book, which is quite explicit. I have been meaning to get around to my copy of "Growing up Absurd" for years now, maybe this is the moment.

However, I cannot accept a blanket statement that an author's works cannot or should not be read for personal statements, especially when it comes to love. Allen Ginsberg's poetry is certainly interpreted as being in good measure a mirror of his mind and emotions, and William Johnson Cory's poetry triggered a veritable avalanche of homoerotic thought and experience, placing him at the center of what was seen as a sensual Renaissance. So while Davenport is welcome to disassociate himself from being identified with his characters, the same cannot be said of all authors. Haiduc 03:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry - forgot to fill in edit summary for last edit

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).

I want to try improving this article again.

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)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Thomas. SethTisue (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for words of encouragement. Can someone point me to someplace on the Wikipedia site that gives instructions and makes recommendations on how to approach the task of incrementally working on an article? For example, can one in some way put suggested language out for comment before posting it as part of the article itself? Thomasrodd (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Removed good faith edit - unreferenced

Although I don't doubt that it's true, have removed the following:

Some of his essays first appeared in politics, 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)

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)

Wives

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

The Empire City

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul Goodman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Paul Goodman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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)

Last edited at 19:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 02:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Kafka's Prayer

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)

Does not add up

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)

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede length

[1] @BlueMoonset, what are your concerns with the lede's length? By my read, it covers every major aspect of his life (commensurate with the article) without going into unnecessary depth. czar 03:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Czar, I think it could stand to be two or three somewhat shorter paragraphs rather than a single paragraph that combines everything. I do see why you would say that it covers every major aspect of his life, but it seems like that's mostly from the Life section in the body, with the other high-level sections getting far less coverage. I wonder that there's nothing about his personal life (two common-law marriages and years of poverty); I was also puzzled about attributing many job losses to his draft resistance when the article body only gives one instance (where it was paired with his bisexuality) of job loss where draft resistance was invoked. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just about every part of his life resists concise summary so I was partly just hoping to keep the introduction generalized. But I've expanded with additional detail on his philosophy and thought. His job losses were due to his sexuality (and perhaps pederasty), not so much the draft resistance, hence the ordering. I don't think the common law marriages or poverty warrant mention in the lede, for what it's worth. czar 02:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm passing this. Two minor comments:

I still don't know what a tertium quid is, nor in what sense Goodman was one.
Depending on what the source say, you may want to add that the New Left was rooted from the Berkeley Free Speech Movement in the US. In Europe, the New Left doesn't trace its roots to that movement if I'm not mistaken. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Reprints

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)

Comment

I am a Goodman "fan" and familiar with his life and work. I added a few sentences about his books being republished and Taylor Stoehr's unfinished biography. I like the Wikipedia article a lot, thoughtful and balanced to my view, and many good sources. Thomasrodd (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Moved from [2]

Thanks, @Thomasrodd. I've been working on PG's set of articles for close to a decade now and glad to see it this far along. Not an easy person to write about or summarize. czar 05:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Page history situation

The current page history situation, with the Paul Goodman page containing a draft that was worked on in userspace by Czar from 2013 to 2019 and Paul Goodman (writer) containing the pre-rewrite text, strikes me as more than a little dishonest and highly unusual. I'd like to do some history merges/splits to make it a bit more reflective of how the article actually developed in the main namespace. For example, this edit does not show the beginnings of an article about Paul Goodman and it takes quite a bit of traipsing through page history and logs to figure out what actually happened. I would do the following:

Move all history from before the page was moved to userspace to a separate location, probably eventually Paul Goodman (writer)
History merge all the edits currently at Paul Goodman (writer) to Paul Goodman, so all the edits in the main namespace relating to this person are in one place.
Move Talk:Paul Goodman (writer) to be an archive of this page.

While Czar there's only one edit in the userspace history not made by you, it's only an AWB edit that had nothing to do with the final main namespace product, so we won't be losing any vital authorship info by doing things this way. Unless you object (or you want to try changing it yourself as an admin), I'd like to do the page history changes I've described above, but I'm asking first because of how unusual this situation is. It wouldn't be impossible to reverse the history splitting once I'd done it, but I'd prefer not to have to do that. I found out about this situation while checking out the Paul Goodman page history after this article by Ted Gioia. This situation led me to do an uncontroversial history merge at Paul Goodman (politician). Graham87 04:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Graham87, feel free to merge as you see fit. I wrote from scratch so there is no shared history. czar 05:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, all done. Graham87 05:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)