Talk:Bruce Goff

Precedents

---

Entry previously read "...Goff's mature work has no precedents and, as yet, no heirs." To anyone familiar with the works of both Goff and of Bart Prince, this statement is nonsensical. Prince worked for (and with) Goff over the course of twenty years, and was clearly influenced by him. There is a direct lineage passing from Goff to Prince. I've amended the statement to the following, more accurate one: "Goff's mature work had no precedents and he has had few heirs other than his former assistant, the New Mexico architect Bart Prince." Bricology 07:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just moved here from article

I just cut this new edit out

"The Bavinger House is no longer visible from the road. It was reported that Nick Harm of OU stated "as long as the Bavingers own the house, no support will ever occur. That's just how we do business." - Nick Harm. It was reported that the house was destroyed in an effort to stop day and night harassment toward the Bavingers after several family members were killed in an effort to take the house. "

We can't really report "It was reported", put it in quotes and do so without a source. Also the phrase "killed in an effort to take the house." means nother to me. Killed trying to take a fort I can understand, but not this. I beleieve that there is important information here, but I don't feel that this edit does it right. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Material on sexual misconduct charges

The material describing the sexual misconduct charges was just removed with an edit summary described as "removing inaccuracies". (see diff) However, the content was supported by a citation to an article published in the New York Times. So, it is verifiable information. It does not appear to me to have undue weight, and I would argue that it belongs in the article. I've asked the editor who removed the content to engage in a conversation hear. However, the editor account has only ever been used the one time, so we may not hear back. If not, I propose to return the content to the article. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this minor scandal is so important to an article about someone who is famous for his groundbreaking architecture. In any case, we need to say what the source says. It doesn't actually say he was homosexual, just that he was accused by someone of having an improper (presumably homosexual) relationship with a student and that he was forced to resign. It doesn't say the relationship actually happened and the whole thing was likely a smear campaign by someone who disliked him or wanted his job. His actual sexuality is unverifiable, and in my view, irrelevant to the article. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion of his sexual misconduct charge is important to understand why he left a university. The material should stay. I disagree with the hint that artists should not be held to the same laws as the rest of us.Pete unseth (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This comment doesn't respond to the problems raised by "Who is John Galt". Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct charge revisited

On April 3, 2015, unlinked User Budalina deleted the paragraph about the allegation that Goff had "...endanger{ed} the morals of a minor." I have reverted this change. Even though the original citation now has a dead link because the article has been removed from the web, that does not mean the subject paragraph is false. There are enough other articles still on the web to indicate that the information is corrrect. This issue has been addressed before on this talk page. It should not continue to be used as a battleground for an edit war.Bruin2 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That level of detail is unnecessary scandalmongering. The man wasn't convicted or even legally charged with anything and Wikipedia does not need to repeat minute details of many-decades-old allegations that were never proven or even brought to a trial. The only people who know why Goff left were himself and the university. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I've found two sources that state that this was almost certainly a smear campaign due to Goff's homosexuality. The sentence has been edited to say what the various sources say rather than the WP:SYNTHESIS / WP:OR like sentence that was there before. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• We certainly have to maintain a careful line between giving inappropriate weight to accusations that were used to persecute someone, while reflecting that the persecution was real, and significant to Goff. Leaving out the information altogether doesn't reflect the fact that he was persecuted with accusations of sexual impropriety. To my mind, the information about the accusations should be kept in, but contextualized as part of the persecution. We don't need to re-hash the evidence from the accusations, which would tend to sensationalize the accusations and perpetuate the persecution. --Lquilter (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Seabees

How could Goff have enlisted in the Seabees, then later became a professor in 1942? The Seabees were not formed before 1942! `` 02:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4200:88D:697D:5FF:9336:A846 (talk)