Talk:Paul Gottfried

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restoring Category - Providing Source[edit]

In the online magazine Jewcy, one can find the following text written by Paul Gottfried. It includes the statement:

"In any case, I thought that my fellow Jews in Westfield were acting more weirdly than the missionary against whom they were taking up arms."

This leaves no doubt, that the categories

  • Category:American Jews
  • Category:Jewish writers
  • Category:Jewish American writers

are in fact justified.
Sincerely, 84.136.228.123 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:BLPCAT, WP:OC#CATGRS, WP:EGRS. Since you appear to have a dynamic IP, the next step will be protecting the article. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jayjg - I would like to ask you a simple question. Do you personally believe that Paul Gottfried is not Jewish?
If one does not deem Jewcy to be a untrustworthy source - if one does not believe that the text is a fake, if one looks at the context considering Paul Gottfried and his son - how could one possibly deduce that he is NOT Jewish?
If you would apply the rigidness regarding the source to all people with the categories which I readded, you would have to remove them in many articles.
Openly, I do not understand why you are so vehement concerning this article. I looked at the history - the users "Y" and "Will Beback" deemed the sources sufficient. Why is your personal opinion worth so much more?
Again - do you really believe that the categories don't apply?
84.136.231.191 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal opinions about Gottfried; all that matters here is policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every policy depends on interpretation. No human being can out of hand equate his own interpretation with truth per se. Why shall Jewcy be an unreliable source? If it's all so absolutely obvious for you but not for other users, it should be a matter of moments for you, and please do so - explain why not a single category identifying Paul Gottfried as Jewish applies here.
84.136.231.191 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would read the links I provided above, you would understand why these categories are inappropriate. Have you read them? Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, he also mentions that he is Jewish in an interview done by the blog, The Idiots [1]:

"Perhaps at the end of the day I’m too much of an Old Testament Jew to accept this act of divine self-debasement [Christ's crucifixtion] as a ransom for our sins." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.228.66 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that "The idiots" blog meets the requirements for WP:RS either. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In John Derbyshire's review of Paul Gottfried's autobiography, he talks about the schism between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives and notes that Gottfried is a Jewish paleoconservative [2]:

"As a Jewish paleocon, Gottfried is neither fish nor fowl to adherents of these simple-minded formulas. He records being “startled” to hear (from Peter Stanlis) that “Gertrude Himmelfarb, whose dislike for me I never doubted, had assumed I was a ‘German Catholic’ who was only pretending to have come from a Jewish refugee family.”"

Does National Review meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources? 69.115.228.66 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely not for a WP:BLP. You could use Gottfried's autobiography, if you knew what page he stated it on, and had an exact quote. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

articles "in several languages"[edit]

"He is the author of numerous books and articles in several languages on intellectual history..."

Does this mean they've been translated into several languages or that he writes in several languages?

Thanks

-- TyrS  chatties  08:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. Removing "in several languages" until this is clarified.-- TyrS  chatties  08:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions[edit]

I have removed the completely unsourced commentary on his political positions per WP:BLP as this is almost certain to prove contentious. It requires careful verification from independent, reliable sources. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not read any of his books. Having just read 6 of his books, I can tell you that attacking "Neo-Conservatism" (from a "Paleo-Conservative" perspective) is one of his key themes. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this vein, one can also locate him writing the introduction of the English translation of Dugin's Heidegger interpretation. Which also needs to be noted in the article given that he considers Dugin a) a like mind, but b) a "modernist".
As might be the fact that that book was published by Washington Summit Publishers, which is unabashedly racialist/white-supremacist. So while Gottfried is conventionally called a "paleo-conservative", he is surely no run-of-the-mill paleo-conservative, except if you place the "paleo" in Germany, c.1933-34, which is not usually done. At least per Gottfried's preface in the Dugin book, the conventional Space-Age-throwback "paleo-conservative" is already degenerate modernist to him, who may be more appropriately termed an "archeo-conservative" who at least in the MAGA era would seem to have come to be more comfortable with a mythocratic philosopher-king than with any form of republicanism. Is this still "New Right"? Or has the "New Right" become old by now, and the "New New Right" is actually the 100-year-old obstetrician of the "Old Right" coming back to life?
At any rate, it is not "conservatism" in any way that term is widely understood; it is reactionary, it wants to go back to a mythical lost Age of Innocence, not try and hold on to (conserve) the recent past. 2A02:8071:5BD0:D4C0:9D4F:2645:A311:CB2B (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Gottfried. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Gottfried&oldid=1207353843"