Talk:Allan Bloom

Sexuality and death

I just read an article in the Huffington Post stating that Bloom was gay and died of AIDS. Is this true? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the article? And if it isn't true - what did he die of? I understand some editors may have concerns about adding controversial material, but as he is no longer living, the biographies of living persons policy does not strictly apply. Additionally, almost all biographical articles have 'Personal life' and 'Death' sections - it's odd this one does not. Robofish (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC) The source in the article is a Christopher Hitchen's book and it says he "likely" died of AIDS. The Huffington Post could've picked up this rumour from Hitchens or vice-versa. In any case it's a rumour floating around academia, and is far from confirmed. I've added a dubious tag. Wlmg (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the whole poorly source specualtion. This kind of "material" is best left for blogs and tabloids. The "offical" cause was liver failure, but that mention and NYT sourced have been removed. Also, why is his death in the friendship and love or whatever its called section? --Threeafterthree (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Threeafterthree's edit deleting the reference to Bloom's death from AIDS (that is, the two word mention of it I'd just added) asks "whether we can find a better source than opinion?" What--like a coroner's report? Only immediate family gets access to those; besides WIkipedia would abjure that as "original research" WP:OR. Wikipedia depends on secondary sources, like newspaper articles, and the most trustworthy and certainly most eloquent press on this was Christopher Hitchen's London Review of Books article. The London Review of Books is not a tabloid, nor is Hitchens given to stating wild fantasy as fact. I note just for the sake of interest, though it was unreported and hence not citable, the conference at American Enterprise Institute considering the relation of reason and revelation shortly after Bloom's demise. In the course of which the assembled Straussians confronted the fact that he'd died of AIDS (a speaker on the podium brought it up). I mention that only to bolster Hitchen's point that AIDS as a cause of death "was finally and reluctantly admitted by his admirers." That is true. Now, normally a cause of death is not very pertinent for an academic. If it had been say a heart attack, so what? But Hitchens also rightly suggests Bloom's death in that fashion, pointing as it did to his behavior, is incongruous with Bloom's "assaults on promiscuous modernism." I might add more in Bloom's favor that it usefully illuminates his choice of topic for his final book--Love and Friendship. So. Having I hope established Bloom's death from AIDS is pertinent, and that there is credible secondary source support, I think the burden now falls on Threeafterthree to justify his deletion. In the course of which perhaps he might ponder the difference between a noble lie much beloved by Straussians--and an ignoble one?ElijahBosley (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But Hitchens also rightly suggests Bloom's death in that fashion, pointing as it did to his behavior, is incongruous with Bloom's "assaults on promiscuous modernism." imho shows that this is being introduced for a "reason" and shows a clear POV. This isn't a BLP, thank g&d, but I would still rather see a "news" report, ect, rather that the assertion of somebody who admittidtly is try to make a point about this person's life/death. Again, this isn't about the "truth", but using the best possibly reliable source(s), especially when commenting/noting of somebody's cause of death. As far as ponder the difference between a noble lie much beloved by Straussians--and an ignoble one I don't personally give a rat's tuckus about this individual, his sexual preference, or his morality lecturing. Can we please just try to find the NYT article previously used and word it per that citation? --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• NYT Magazine by D.T. Max
• NYT Book section/essay by By Jim Sleeper
• Inside Higher Ed - The Closing of the American Mind, 20 Years Later. By Donald Lazere --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Threeafterthree for weighing in and thanks also for the three citations. Max, in the New York Times Magazine says Bloom "possibly died from AIDS." Sleeper, in the NYT Book Section says nothing about his death. Lazere, from Inside Higher Ed, speaks of "semi-closeted homosexuality" "possibly culminating" in death from AIDS. As mentioned earlier Hitchens in the London Review of Books says flat out Bloom died of AIDS "as even his supporters reluctantly admit." I now see why you feel Hitchens overstated the case when he omitted the "possibly." So where does that leave us? I have two ideas. One is instead of two words, three words. That last sentence would say "Bloom died, possibly of AIDS" with a footnote that cites all the articles. The second idea which would require more work *sigh* is a separate section (responding to your point that his death may not belong in the Love and Friendshipsection) which discusses his death and why the various commentators think dying of AIDS, if he died of it, significant in the culture wars. Reluctant as I am to overdo that, and also reticent to take on more work, I tend toward the second as the right solution but will wait for your view before I attempt to write it.ElijahBosley (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ElijahBosley, how about idea three? Bloom died of liver failure, and find a reliable source that states that rather than the speculation/weaselly words about possibly his cause of death or the pronouncement of a writer trying to make some point? This to me falls into the "gerbil up the tuckus" stories senerio. Just becasue there has been speculation, do we include it? Other input would surely help and I too could try to rewrite something here and look for more reliable sources. It would seem that the placement should be in a different/new section as well. Anyways, to be continued I am sure :) Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Threafterthree--I'll use your fine suggestion as an reason not to do anything at all right now. "More research needed." Wonderful excuse for procrastination, beloved of academics and lawyers. I will note in passing that liver and kidney failure are perfectly consistent with AIDS. Usually the death certificate reads "complications of AIDS," since the AIDS virus itself is not fatal, but by destroying the immune system it paves the way for other stuff to ravage the organs. Everything fails, just gives up and collapses. All beside the point since I do not have and cannot get Bloom's hospital charts showing his blood tests, and even if I did Wiki would prohibit publishing them both as OR and possibly invasion of privacy. So I think the right approach would be to say that Saul Bellow's book Ravelstein, by making the main character gay and dying of AIDS, opened up questions about Bloom's sexuality and his death. Citing the controversy, rather than taking sides in it. Which I might do, but later, because now I am procrastinating. Other fish to fry. Best wishes.ElijahBosley (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't even start me on procrastinating, but that is for another day :). Also, Citing the controversy, a thing I always love(j/k) about this project, why/who says this is such a controversy? Huffington post? Hitchens? Others? "they"? I admitt, I knew little/to nothing about this bio before hand, and don't really care that much about it now, but I am always concerned when "speculation" opinion, whatever you want to call it, creeps into articles, especially when they involve people, died or alive(both the same to me), and it seems to be to "prove" some kind of point or theory. That is why I don't really do much climate change, ethnic battling, conspiracy stuff per say, since who really cares and it doesn't really effect actual individuals or their legacy. Anyways, good luck with your fish and I will try to craft something. Is anybody else out there that could "improve/solve" this?? --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is all a perfect example for those who accuse wikipedia to be nothing more than a place to push points of views and settle old scores. Bloom didn't die of AIDS nor did the scores of prominent theater and Hollywood types who bought the farm from pneumonia in the 80's and early 90's. Why all this fuss to insert this speculation of his cause of death as AIDS into the article? I say leave it as it is with a hard cited source, why let the allegationists have a separate section? Unless a hard source can be found that the cause of death was AIDS, then every source that says he (likely,maybe,possibly,thankfully,hopefully,finally,deservedly) died of AIDS is at the best hearsay and at the worst slander.Wlmg (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least have some acknowledgment of Bloom's homosexuality somewhere in the article? I agree that the AIDS issue is speculative, but his sexual identity is both widely acknowledged and relevant to his position as a cultural critic. 76.104.153.48 (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this article and this debate; I came to this talk page specifically to see if the homosexuality/AIDS issued had been discussed. In other words, if I'm interested in the topic, others will be too, and will want some guidance from Wiki about what the status of those claims is. May I propose an approach? In the footnote to the following sentence, "he is virtually silent on the gay rights movement," could the following be added: "Bloom's position on gay rights is of interest because of widespread statements and questions about Bloom's own sexual orientation, including claims that he died of AIDS. [then include citations of the Hitchens, Lazere, Max, and Sleeper articles]."Blewenstein (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am another newcomer to this article, having researched the topic for several days. I did find that on 3 April 2012 with a posting at 23:28, the text in the paragraph entitled "Career" was changed to reflect that Allan Bloom died of AIDS. I've naturally read the earlier postings which seemed to indicate that the topic has been in a kind of limbo among talkers since September 2010. The new text cites Andrew Ferguson's recent Weekly Standard article on Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind as its source; I believe his article is what occasioned this latest change. In that article Ferguson states flatly that Bloom died of AIDS, but he does not cite any authority for this statement. After all the earlier talk of a couple years ago now, I'm surprised this statement has "suddenly" entered the article as though it is an undisputed fact. I believe this part of the text should be returned to its state just prior to the change on 3 April 2012.

The Wikipedia chapter "Critical Reception" on Allan Bloom does now state that Bloom was a homosexual. While that is unlikely to be disputed, even without a footnoted source, the cause of his death in obituaries at the time of his death is not listed as AIDS. I remain on the side of the debates that the statement that has been added is still POV, rumor, speculation,and that we still have no NPOV or valid document to substantiate it. Cedrtainly to cite Ferguson's article for the source leads one to a dead-end.

I have looked at the Wikipedia talk piece by Ruy Lopez, "Bloom's own sexuality (Revisited 2007"), checking each citation there, except for the one by Christopher Hitchens, to which I don't have access. I recall, though, that Hitchens had no authority for his statements in other writings I've read other than to say simply said it was "likely" Bloom died of AIDS. Kipnis does not say Bloom died of AIDS but in her footnote 19 to Chapter 5, she mentions that rumors swept the University of Chicago campus when Bloom died, reportedly of bleeding ulcers and/or liver failure; those who knew him to be homosexual wondered if he had AIDS. The passage in "Carpe Manana" where Leonard Sweets says Bloom died of AIDS uses only the roman a clef "Ravelstein" as its source. This of course does not help at all for the Bloom article. The Wikipedia article on "Ravelstein" does not speak to this matter. Irishellen (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)irishellen

"The Life of Saul Bellow, Volume 2 LOVE AND STRIFE, 1965-2005" By ZACHARY LEADER has an entire chapter on Bloom and his death and whether or not he had AIDS and whether it was AIDS that killed him. (Since Bellow and Bloom were best friends.) Leader quotes Bloom's medical executor, Nathan Tarcov, as saying that Bloom did not die of AIDS, but Leader himself doesn't seem to take a position on it, acknowledging that there is evidence both for and against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.244.74.98 (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Plato's Republic

This section largely deals with Leo Strauss and the concept of esoteric writing. We need to remove it from Bloom's bio and either attach it to the Struass page or delete it altogether.Wirelesswonderer (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary, continued

...Whether the author means to have this dash, and blend pop and rock, or whether he is more determined to have the words "pop" and "music," I cannot say. (Musical sense seems to characterize the Rolling Stones as occupying a place on the outside of pop.) Please comment if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Allan Bloom/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.

Covered a lot had pictures and was neutral (requirements for a good article)

Last edited at 22:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Allan Bloom. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208153310/http://home.online.no/~corneliu/npq.htm to http://home.online.no/~corneliu/npq.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710225628/http://www.robertowenslater.info/AllanBloomessay.pdf to http://www.robertowenslater.info/AllanBloomessay.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408205012/http://claremont.org/publications/pubid.664/pub_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.664/pub_detail.asp

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) 06:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Add Picture

I don't know how to, but there should be a picture of him! If someone could add one, that would be nice :) 136.167.100.137 (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)