Talk:Jonah Goldberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.



Contents

[edit] NeoCon

Jonah Goldberg is a neoconservative, not a conservative. --HowardJ87 02:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Goldberg identifies himself as a conservative and not an neocon (and he's written on the problematic use of the neocon label). He's not a neocon in the conventional definition of someone who moved from left to right. Makgraf 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Jonah Goldberg is a neocon / neoliberal. He outright rejects the traditional notion of conservatism, i.e. the value-centered historicism of Burke and De Maistre, and wants to replace real conservatism with Jacobin abstractions.

See: http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/first_universal_goldberg.htm http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/pope.htm and http://www.vdare.com/williamson/goldberg.htm --HowardJ87 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a response to this next week, as I'll be travelling. Makgraf 03:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Goldberg calls himself a conservative, most commentators call him a conservative, and indeed most people that call themselves conservative would call him a conservative. BobFromBrockley 11:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
TalkMag labels Goldberg a neoconservative:

Paleocons have long cited National Review columnist and well-known Mama’s boy Jonah Goldberg as the epitome of all they find contemptible in the “new” (i.e. neocon-ized) conservative movement: Paul Gottfried coined the term “Goldbergism” to describe what has replaced the old conservatism of Frank S.Meyer and Russell Kirk in the pages of National Review. Whatever else we paleos disagree about – and, not being a party-lining, neo-Trotskyite cult, we often disagree about many things – we can all agree on one overriding principle: Jonah Goldberg represents All That Has Gone Wrong. Or, as Paul Gottfried so memorably put it: “Goldbergism – The Lowest (Terminal) Stage of Conservatism.” [1]

Most reputable sources have labeled Jonah a conservative rather than a neoconservative. Goldberg has also written numerous articles critical of some neoconservative principles. "Taki's Top Drawer", the magazine you cite (link), does not appear to be a reliable source in the wikipedia sense (WP:RS). Citing NRO is appropriate only because the citations cover either direct quotations or non-controversial things (ie that he works for them). Nevertheless, the article does tend to lean too heavily on citations from NRO-- some interpretive, biographical, reputable, secondary sources would be preferable. Wellspring (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That quote ("Paleocons have long ...") comes from "TakiMag", as in Taki Theodoracopulos, not "TalkMag". Neither Mr. Theodoracopulos, his magazine nor vdare.com are Reliable Sources for this article (see WP:BLP).
I also agree with Wellspring about overuse of NRO for citations. Cheers, CWC 09:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg most closesly resembles neoliberalism with some seriously healthy doses of social-liberal oposition which are most aligned with fascism (pro corporatism, populism, nationalism, militarism)-- please refer to the definition of fascism on wikipedia. Neoliberals have done their best to destroy the word "liberal" so they often go by the misnomer "neoconservative". The Bush administration is as a whole neoliberal but many identifiy themselves as neoconservative. for a definition of neoliberalism please see "neoliberalism" on wikipedia. The argument he calls himself conservative so he must be conservative does not hold water. I could call myself Che Guerva but it doesn't make it so. To call Mr. Goldberg a conservative you would need references other than Mr. Goldberg himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gisforgary (talk • contribs) 12:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video Blog

His video blog is located at http://www.nationalreview.com/video/archives/ It should be added as a link at the bottom.


[edit] IP address

It looks like the user at IP Address 69.3.236.144 Really has some personal beefs with Jonah Goldberg, as displayed by his repeated vandalism of this article.

I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia. What is the process to go through to have a user blocked from editing a specific article? If anyone can help out with that, it would be great! --WAHooker July 7, 2005 12:19 (UTC)


What is the purpose of the Juan Cole link? --69.37.131.232 18:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out 3 sentences that I felt both had innaccurate information and didn't contribute anything. Goldberg and Sullivan disagree about many issues aside from the aforementioned social issues (Iraq and Bush spring to mind). The line about Goldberg having no experience in government and political organizations seemed gratutious (and is also wrong, he worked at the AEI). The 'Mendoza' line is fun, but pointless. Maybe if it was connected to Simpsons references? Makgraf 01:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that he was entirely serious with the "invasion of Africa" thing. I think it was more of a thought experiment. How can that be reworded - or is it even important to include in the article at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.36.138.30 (talk • contribs) .

Clicking through the link and reading Goldberg's article (actually the first page, the link for Next Page on NRO's site is broken), he appears to be serious. Strange. Crust 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the link and read the whole thing. Yes, he was serious (for context this was his view in May 2000, much has changed since then of course). Crust 22:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I rather think that he wouldn't advocate it now for purely logistical reasons (apparently invading sovereign states is harder than he thought!), but it would still be a "noble" enterprise in principle. What an utter cock. --Saforrest 16:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Goldberg advised Tripp to record her phone calls as a precaution against reprisals. Given that they hadn't happened then we should be talking about possible reprisals (i.e. that could happen) rather than saying "the reprisals". Makgraf 05:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think either phrasing is possible. "To protect against reprisal" and "To protect against any possilbe reprisal" mean basically the same thing to me. Neither suggests that a reprisal is inevitable, only that the victim of it think it is. I like the brief version better on principle (brevity in language) but they both mean the same thing. One's just wordier. Bjsiders 14:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, but "To protect against the reprisals" implies that they are inevitable. You're right though, just "reprisals" is briefer and cleaner. Makgraf 18:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sid vs. Sidney Goldberg

Should Jonah's father Sidney be referred to, at least to begin with, by his full name? Also, would it be better to talk in a little more detail about what he did? (He wrote for TechCentralStation.com, at least. Does anyone else know more about where he worked?) BLHersey 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Wouldn't it make more sense to provide a link to his author archive-at either NRO or Townhall.com-instead of linking to individual essays or columns he's written? Ruthfulbarbarity 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The article does link to both his NRO and his Townhall archives. However, it is good to link to the articles that are quoted in the article so that users can (1) verify the quote is genuine and (2) see it in context. Also, when it says he has written about censorship, many will be curious to know what he has written about it. The link riught allows them to find out in a single click. Otherwise they'd have to fossick about in his archives or google "Jonah Goldberg + Censorship", etc and it'd take a lot longer for people to get the info. Jacob1207 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I added his attacks on liberals and Democrats, in 2006 over 25% of his columns contained these. Getterstraight 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, citation? Makgraf 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New facts

Two new facts were put on the page recently one about Coulter and one about a Pinochet option for Iraq. I believe they are both true but the do need citations. Master shepherd 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave the citations. My find button didn't recognize the apostrophe in the orginal quote so it looked like it wasn't in the article . When I read the full article I found the quote and put it back. Makgraf 05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] frequent topics

A bunch of new info was put up on the frequent topics section with no citation. I deleted the stuff that was clearly not NPOV the rest I marked as citation needed. If they don't get cited soon I am going to delete them. Master shepherd 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Igoldman said "Citations for the above paragraph on Iraq all come from one column, syndicated, "IRAQ WAS A WORTHY MISTAKE," Oct. 20, 2006, at this link: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjY2M2M2YmY3YWZhODg5ZTQwYjdlN2MxM2FjNzQ0OTA=. Thanks to the policy he championed in Iraq, the U.S. Army is nearly "broken," as one general told Congress. Consequently, it now accepts recruits as old as 42, which means Goldberg, if he chose, could still enlist." Someone needs to evaluate this and then insert the facts from it into the article. Makgraf 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The "implied treasonous motives to those who disagree" charge is a pretty serious one and so far I haven't seen any evidence backing it up. Makgraf 08:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
""to wars that advance U.S. interests (or, allegedly, President Bush's or Israel's or ExxonMobil's interests."" This isn't implying "treasonous" motives in any way. I'm sure most people on the left would agree that they oppose wars for the sake of advancing, say, American economic or military interests. Saying people object to wars for realpolitik reasons does not equal calling them traitors. I should probably add that Goldberg is saying this in a sneering way because that's how he does things. But it doesn't add up to the accusation provided.Makgraf 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Goldberg's "bet" with Cole?

February 8, 2005: "Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his (Juan Cole) when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now)." Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200502081153.asp

216.59.249.73 16:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This was recently added to the article. Abe Froman 16:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but Prof Cole never took Goldberg up on the bet. So I don't really see the relevance. Makgraf 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is relevant in two ways, first by highlighting Goldberg's beliefs on foreign policy in Iraq, and second, by showing how strongly he believes in them. Abe Froman 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If he actually made the bet, yes. But people offering bets on things are pretty common. What do others think about this? In the mean-time I'm going to rewrite it to be compatible with the rest of the article. Makgraf 20:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Goldberg wrote the words, and it is notable in context of his relationship with other academics opposed to his positions. Whether he "took" the bet is irrelevant. Abe Froman 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I lean towards saying this should stay. It fits very well into the section which is in about Goldberg’s relationship with other writers, and it does seem to capture something of his style of writing and confrontation. I am somewhat uncomfortable about the fact that the statement is about such a hot button issue, but Goldberg is often controversial. If it were to be removed then I think the same reasoning would have to apply in removing Garofalo's comment about Goldberg being a chickenhawk. Master shepherd 15:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Guess it should stay in then. Makgraf 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember WP:NPOV when putting things in the article! Makgraf 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused why the new sources are "more reputable citations" than the existing ones. We have Goldberg saying he'll make a bet which has the citation where Goldberg says he'll make the bet. Then we have Cole rejecting the bet which has the citation where Cole rejects the bet. Why would retrospective articles 2 years later be "more reputable" than the actual sources. They just seem redundant. Makgraf 01:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't say why the decision was made, but typically you want to source it to third parties for two reasons. First, the original source may be a self-serving account and using good references helps to insulate the article from that. Second, the policy WP:OR (no original research). Primary sources tend to require interpretation which is out of scope of wikipedia. Instead, you wait until some reputable third source draws a conclusion, and then report (and cite) it.
On an unrelated note, I totally agree with the decision to include the bet with Juan Cole. First, it is illustrative of Jonah's style and personality. Second, it indicates his views and degree of conviction. Pundits are supposed to be controversial so you can't really do justice to him without touching on some of the controversies.
Wellspring (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI to people who are watching this page I am not rv this because the anonymous editor is saying mean things or disagreeing with me but because he is using homophobic slurs which is expressly forbidden in WP:NPA. Now I'm not personally offended by this but this sort of thing has no place on wikipedia. The implication that being gay is bad is a hatefull one and could create a chilling effect which could marginalize people in that community. Makgraf 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Goldberg

Does Jonah Goldberg have any relation with another conservative commentator Bernard Goldberg? WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope [2] Makgraf 16:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate for deletion ?

Jonah has apparently decided to write book a where he compares liberals to Nazis on the basis of their shared love of homosexuals, animal rights, vegetarian diets and socialist policies, among other things.

Now I don't actually know what an article needs to do to qualify for deletion, but surely you Wiki editiors have included some "More trouble than it's worth" clause. I think you are going to have a very interesting editing time ahead of you, you poor bastards LOL. Attriti0n (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AfD doesn't include a "I really don't like him" clause. According to media previews, Goldberg's book traces the history of progressivism, tracing its links to pre-Nazi fascism, and its influence on modern liberal thought (and its influence on "compassionate conservatism". While obviously controversial, there doesn't seem to be anything about its content that would make its author non-notable and therefore a candidate for deletion. Might I suggest reading it and judging then? Just a thought. :)
Wellspring (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Since publication Liberal Fascism has turned into a top 10 book on Amazon and will very likely make the next NY Times' bestseller list. In other words, the books an additional reason for notability. TMLutas (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pinochet and Chile

I have removed a sentence from one paragraph because it is editorializing for the purpose of presenting JG's opinions in a negative, an unfavorable, and a caricatural view. In that paragraph, then ("He has recently published a column supporting finding an "Iraqi Augusto Pinochet" to bring stability to Iraq, stating that "Pinochet's abuses helped create a civil society". [1] Pinochet was responsible for the murder, torture, and disappearances of thousands of Chileans.[3]") I have removed the final sentence and link ("Pinochet was responsible for the murder, torture, and disappearances of thousands of Chileans.[4]").

The sentence not only goes into a different subject than the bio that is concerned here, it does so in a way that suggests that in Chile, everything was going (more or less) swell and dandy and that the country was embarked on a road to (earthly) paradise, when suddenly, out of the blue, a demented general (Pinochet) went berserk and did nothing if not bring chaos upon his country (this, needless to say, is akin to the Michael Moore view of Saddam Hussein's Iraq).

That sentence ignores the fact that, in the views of at least in a number of Chileans (and foreigners), Salvador Allende (elected or otherwise) was embarking his country on the same path that brought one-party statedom, disaster, and repression (not to speak of "murder, torture, and disappearances") to countries such as East Germany, Romania, and (neighboring) Cuba.

Not that this sentence (and the hyperlink) do not necessarily belong on Wikipedia at all. But it doesn't belong on JG's page, in my view; integrate them on Pinochet's entry. If the reader wants to find out more from this short para, let him put his cursor over the hyperlinked name of Augusto Pinochet and use the power of the click. Asteriks (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to take sides on the right-wing charge that the democratically elected Allende government was somehow moving the country toward totalitarian disaster. As an illustration of Goldberg's contrarian thinking, however, it's worth mentioning here that Pinochet is considered by many people to be a murderous dictator. I agree with you that full explication of the details of Pinochet's regime (pro and con) should be left to the hyperlinked Pinochet article, but the reader unfamiliar with Pinochet should be given at least an indication of why Goldberg's invocation of Pinochet is notable. JamesMLane t c 12:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)