Talk:Victor Davis Hanson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victor Davis Hanson article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military biography task force Military historiography task force

Victor Davis Hanson has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Neoconservative? 2 Unprotecting 3 The Western Way of War 4 Opposing viewpoints 5 Copyvio 6 Lack of Military Service 7 Nice rebuttal 8 Changes made 25-Mar-2006 9 Those external links 10 The lede 11 Environmental factors 12 names in prose 13 Neoconservative revisited 14 POV template

[edit] Neoconservative?

Could Victor Davis Hanson be described as a neoconservative? GCarty 13:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Unprotecting

No ongoing discussion. Unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] The Western Way of War

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

[edit] Opposing viewpoints

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)

[edit] Copyvio

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 Sidaway^Talk 16:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Military Service

Deleting line about criticism of VDH's lack of military service. This appears to be based on an ad hominem attack. Only substantive criticism of VDH's scholarly work (or political opinions) is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.153.241 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 November 2005 UTC

It is not an ad hominem attack. It is the accurate statement of a fact which may or may not reflect hypocrisy in his support of the Iraq War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.229.205 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 December 2005 UTC

I believe the following makes inclusion of this factoid unnecessary:

1. His or his family's military service or lack thereof does not allow or disallow him from forming opinions.
2. His lack of military service is evident from his biographical information.
3. He's 56. He's hasn't been eligible for military service for two decades. (Sorry, he appears to be 52. Mike Wilson 04:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
4. The statement reeks of political slant.

-- Mike Wilson 04:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

His namesake was killed at Okinawa. Maybe he himself never served, but his family obviously knows the human cost of war very well.--Jpbrenna 19:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To you the statement reeks of political slant because you are embarrassed by it and want to sweep it under the rug. Many of us with family nmembers on the ground in Iraq find it significant. He is free to express his view of the Iraq War and we are free to decide what weight to give that opinion in light of his family staying out of that war. The fact that World War II was obviously an essential and well fought war is exactly what distinguishes it from the current war, along with the fact that it was waged against nations who had already declared war on us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.171.224.83 (talk • contribs) 01:31 29 December 2005 UTC

You seem sincere in finding it significant. I sincerely find it irrelevant. Since you seem like someone with boundless zeal, I'd like to hope for a compromise, although I can't speak for anyone else. First of all, you will need to find a solid reference confirming your assertion as per WP:CITE and WP:V. Then maybe some sort of line at the end of the paragraph can acknowledge the tenacity of his critics and their view of his credibility? I tried to think of an example, but they all sounded lame to me. Or maybe others have an alternative? -- Mike Wilson 04:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice rebuttal

[1] in response to [2]

"...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)

I've removed the text about VDH's 26Aug2005 NRO essay from the Brecher link, and inserted a mention of Brecher in the description of that NRO essay. Now the essay is only mentioned once; much better. For more detail, see my talk page. —Chris Chittleborough 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made 25-Mar-2006

I've edited the Iraq War section:

• I say VDH is not "pro-war" re the Middle-East, just hawkish.
• He sees bad Arab and Iranian autocracies (not the Arabs and Iranians themselves!) as the main cause of (1) fundamentalist Islamic terrorism and (2) the "backwardness" (my word) of Iran and most Arab nations

I phrased (2) as "retarded economic, technological and cultural progress" only because I can't think of a good way to express it. Edits welcome!

• I've added no less that 5 {{citeneeded}} tags, asking for

1. link(s) to someone calling him neoconservative

(Update: it took a lot of googling but I found one and added it in. Chris Chittleborough 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

2. link(s) to him discussing whether he is neoconservative

3. link(s) to him blaming autocratic Middle East governments for "backwardness"

4. link(s) to him blaming autocratic Middle East governments for terrorism

5. link(s) to critics calling him racist and islamophobic

#1 and #2 here should probably be moved somewhere else in the article.

I'll look for citations for #3 and #4.

I'll let someone else look for citation(s) for #5. I'll delete this sentence in a month or so if no good citations for it have been added. (Every public figure who supports the defeat of Saddam and the terrorists in Iraq has been called racist and Islamaphobic. Accusations like this only deserve inclusion in articles if made by notable people or in notable circumstances or as part of a notable public debate or in a notable manner or if notable for some other reason.)

I've also edited the intro para to say what kind of grapes he grows. We farm kids care about such details ;-)

As always, feel free to WP:BOLDly improve my work!

—Chris Chittleborough 04:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hanson is very clear about his notions that non-Western societies value "freedom" and other values less than Western society does. Culture and Carnage in particular pursues that theme. I can't grant your second point. Tom129.93.17.202 18:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Those external links

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)

http://www.taemag.org/issues/articleID.17004/article_detail.asp

Two essays about George Washington, one by Richard Brookhiser, the other by Bruce S. Thornton and VDH, from 1999.

I don't see why this link belongs in an article about Prof. Hanson. CWC(talk) 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/1/hanson.htm

"Military Technology and American Culture", an essay for the first issue of The New Altantis, published Spring 2003.

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)

The article from The New Atlantis can't go here as User:CNicol is affiliated with the magazine, making her addition linkspam. As for the other, I don't think we need to link to VDH's individual articles. Wikipedia is not a link directory. CRCulver 10:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lede

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)

[edit] Environmental factors

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] names in prose

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)

[edit] Neoconservative revisited

It's clear from Victor Hansons blog entry regarding himself and Mark Steyn, that he is saying that they are the only two left, as in pundits. Mark Steyn is clearly not a NeoConservative and Hanson who had objected to the 1998 letter from the NeoConservatives to president is not one either, as he's said here and elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.41.12 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 December 2006 UTC

I added Hanson's own reference to himself as a neoconservative. Its been a while since I've used my wiki account and cannot remember my account name. In any case, here is the relevant part of the reference that I cited:

"But it is not just Leftists who are getting what they wished for, but a lot of the neoconservatives as well. It may be that true, as one pundit wrote, that Mark Steyn and myself are about the only two left that both support the war—despite the mistakes—and Rumsfeld in general."

His easy use of the term neoconservative contradicts the previous citation that he considered it a slur, and his applying it to himself (not contradicting the "pundit" he cites) makes it look like he is actually rather proud of the designation, or at the very least comfortable with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.41.12 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 December 2006 UTC

But the above quotation doesn't make him a neoconservative at all. The "pundit" he cites doesn't call him that, so there's no question of his contracting or not contradicting it. The "pundit" says hyperbolically that Steyn and Hanson are "the only two" who support the war and Rumsfeld. The "pundit" doesn't say "the only two neoconservatives", but rather "the only two." Don't assume that "two" means "two neoconservatives" just because the word neoconservatives appears in the previous sentence. After all, the word leftists occurs there too. Tom129.93.17.139 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV template

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.

{{POV|November 2006}} 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)