Talk:James P. Hogan (writer)

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.


I edited the introductory material; Hogan cannot reasonably be compared to Clarke as someone who has done his research, since he doesn't. Gene Ward Smith 21:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Fiction works

Can anyone add some info about Hogan's non-fiction works? I believe they are named Mind Matters and Kicking the Sacred Cows.

Holocaust Denial is a serious charge. Got anything solid ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.159.194 (talk • contribs)

Click on the link in the reference section and scroll down to the section on Hogan's website that is called "Free Speech Hypocrite." You note it is footnoted in the article. Shsilver 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Again, where does Hogan deny the holocaust? Any other cites ? Asking someone to be thorough and careful in their prosecution does not equal getting in bed with the defendant. The interpretation of that cite is fuzzy, got anything solid ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.147.134 (talk • contribs)

Here's a more extensive quotation from the cited source, with some notes added by myself. This is a commentary that was written by Hogan himself, and which is hosted on Hogan's own homepage. I don't see anything "fuzzy" about it.

Have any of them actually read any of the Revisionists' works, studied their sources, or compared objectively and critically the Revisionists' arguments with the officially dispensed story they've been told? If not, how do they presume to form any judgment that can be called informed before lecturing the world at large?

I have.[1] In fact it was Arthur Butz's book (see Home Page from the link above) that first aroused my interest in the subject many years ago now. I got to know Mark Weber quite well during the time that I lived in California, as a result of my following up various further researches. And I find their case more scholarly, scientific, and convincing than what the history written by the victors says.[2] So I suppose that expressing such skepticism makes me a guilty party too.

In June this year I'm scheduled to visit Germany as the Guest of Honor at a science-fiction convention in Lubeck, and I have no intention of withdrawing on this kind of account. So are S.F. writers now to risk being arrested when they step off a plane, simply for looking at two bodies of evidence and reaching a conclusion other than the one demanded? Well, we'll see, won't we?[3]

  1. ^ Pretty straightforward here IMO, he's saying here that he's studied the work of Holocaust revisionists and has compared them to the "official" story of how the Holocaust went down.
  • ^ And here he's saying that, having studied the revisionist version and compared it to the "official" version, he's more strongly convinced by the revisionist one (at least, the revisionism versions of Butz and Weber). This statement makes Hogan a supporter of Butz and Weber's Holocaust revisionism.
  • ^ The "conclusion other than the one demanded" is presumably the revisionist one claiming the Holocaust didn't happen as generally accepted. By asking rhetorically whether S.F. writers are at risk of being arrested in Germany for reaching that conclusion, and then stating that "we'll see" when he goes to Germany, he's implying again that he's reached the conclusion that the Holocaust didn't happen as generally accepted.
Which bits of this interpretation do you disagree with, specifically? As for the "getting in bed with the defendant" comment, I'm not sure what you mean but bear in mind that this isn't a court of law - Wikipedia don't have to hold to those sorts of extreme standards of proof. And in any event, as far as I'm aware simply stating the belief that the Holocaust didn't happen is not illegal in the United States. So legal analogies aren't very useful. Bryan 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia don't have to hold to those sorts of extreme standards of proof." Lucky for you. But realize your willingness to champion the Daley administration puts you on extremely shaky ground. Your holocaust tie-in remains weak. I could edit your junk, but you'd just put it back in. And you'd feel all martyrized. Do you know Hogan personally ? Have you spoken with him ? I notice you cite someone else's work, not his or your own. One wonders what is your motivation. Perhaps you don't like his conclusions, and have to attempt undermine via smear. Don't forget that your other interests lay revealed around Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.147.134 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid you've got me confused, I don't know what the "Daley administration" is, how I'm "championing" it, or what that has to do with this issue. As for the rest of your comments; I don't know Hogan personally (and if I did I couldn't use personal communications as a source anyway since that'd be original research), and the work I cited is indeed his own (it's one of his commentaries on his own homepage). I'd be fascinated to hear an analysis of my "other interests" on Wikipedia since a great deal of the things I work on are found by clicking Special:Random :) Bryan 07:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It's probably entirely irrelevant by now, but a quick Googling I just did came up with [1]. Are you Egyptoid by any chance? If so, at last the "Daley administration" thing makes some amount of sense. Though still not much - the only edits I can find relating to it is a minor edit on Richard J. Daley in March 2004 [2] wherein I updated an image's markup. Still don't know what championing I was involved with or what it has to do with this matter. Bryan Derksen 04:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slander

To place Hogan into the Holocaust DENIAL category is pure slander. He very carefully states that his study of the holocaust leaves him SKEPTICAL that the way it is generally reported and accepted is, in fact, the way it actually WAS. This doesn't mean that millions weren't killed. In fact, to call a reduction in the number of millions killed holocaust denial is to deny the title of holocaust to the millions who ARE still acknowledged as being killed - and it's his accusers who do this, NOT him. For in FACT, his references do NOT support holocaust denial, but rather a refinement of the NUMBERS killed and the WAY they were killed - not THAT they were killed. Tossing off, therefore, casual "obviousness" comments about labelling him a holocaust denier is indefensible, and merely an implication tactic, which goes along with all of the other implicatory accusations made against him by the holocaust accusers.

Ultimately, however, this whole thing is a red herring, for in fact Hogan is an excellent hard SF writer with LIBERTARIAN politics in his books, which pisses off the Left, because so many teens and college-age people read SF and so he could actually - gasp - influence their political thinking AWAY from liberalprogressivesocialistcommunism. So, in the typically dishonest undermining strategy found at the hands of the Left all over the world, they have created a false charge to slander him as a PERSON, because they can't refute his POLITICS. Wikipedia, therefore, is merely helping this politically-derived slander by allowing this false (through gross misrepresentations, innuendo and implication) "holocaust denier" accusation to stand without a balanced counter-argument existing next to the original accusation, and without requiring a limiting of the accusation itself to the specific and detailed facts of this highly charged topic - and THAT is the REAL shame going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.32.127 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 October 2006

What "balanced counter-argument" would you suggest? By the way, in the written medium it's libel, not slander. Bryan 08:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You say the 'number of millions' are in question, not that millions died, but the second link in his post says:

On the other hand I, and Holocaust revisionists generally, emphatically reject the "extermination" claim and, by implication, any figure of Jewish dead (due to Nazi policies) in the millions.

I'm getting a vision...OF THE FUTURE! I see...I see a man. He's saying something - He's declaring that millions of jews died, but of starvation and cholera caused by...Um, I can't quite tell, it looks like flying planes...allied bombing campaigns! Chris Croy 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Misc Holocaust

His site was redesigned and all of the links broke, so I fixed them. What's more interesting is that the linked Holocaust article no longer existed in any form on his new website. He makes an off-hand reference to it here(Scroll down to September 4), cryptically describing how he had merely objected to the imprisoning of revisionists and suggested the critics read the source material for themselves. He also links favorably to the Institute for Historical Review here.Chris Croy 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It still seems to be there ([3]), just scroll a little farther down or do a text search for "Free-speech Hypocrisy" to find it. It appears to be identical to the original on archive.org except the paragraph breaks are gone and it's been re-dated from February 22 2006 to March 15 2006. Bryan Derksen 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That's odd. I was very thorough in my search for it. The only explanation I can give is that the article was added back in at some point between February 1st and 16th. That or I've gone senile far before my time. Chris Croy 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I did a very cursory search myself back when you first mentioned its disappearance and didn't find it then, so it might well have reappeared since. No need to book a room at the old folks' home yet. :) Bryan Derksen 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As one who knows Jim personally, I can confirm that his site was being redesigned around that time. May I also add that he indeed does not deny that the holocaust happened. For the record, neither is he a creationist as stated. He does believe that neo-Darwinianism is flawed, but is equally frustrated that the Intelligent Design debate has been taken over, largely, by the creationists. 88.151.80.245 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've elaborated on the description of his position on evolution a little more, is it more accurate now? Bryan Derksen 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The page is constantly being re-written with inaccuracies calling the author a holocaust denier. The person doing this is copying and pasting text into the edit page, even overwriting corrected links. Is this what Wikipedia is for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D Glynn (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
I assume I'm "this person", since I did the only major copying and pasting currently in the talk page. You may say my name freely if you like, it's not a secret and it'll make conversation a lot clearer. Anyway, two questions. First, what's wrong with "copying and pasting text into the edit page"? Excerpts and quotations for the purpose of analysis is one of the more basic fair use rights. Second, which "corrected link" did I overwrite? I've removed the holocaust denier category since it is IMO a bit too categorical in this instance but I don't believe I've misrepresented Hogan's statement on the matter, as I explained in the section with the quotation you mentioned. Bryan Derksen 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
He could also be referring to me since I'm the one who reverted his edits earlier today. Shsilver 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense, though now that I check the two links in question I do still wonder what was "corrected" about his version - they both lead to the same commentary, one with paragraph breaks and the other without. What do you think of the wording tweaks and the decategorization I did subsequently, by the way? I'm trying not to go into a deep elaborate examination of Hogan's views since that strikes me as disproportionate, but I also don't want to oversimplify or omit significant examples. Bryan Derksen 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough on the links, Brian. The wording tweaks in relation to Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design are appropriate and accurate. As to the inaccurate claims of Holocaust Denial reinserted by Shsilver, I'll wait to see what James has to say himself. D Glynn 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
When someone explains that he finds the arguments of Holocaust deniers to be more persuasive than claims that the Holocaust occurred, it is not inaccurate to state that he has espoused Holocaust denialShsilver 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)