Talk:The Professors/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

More on the list

Edit conflict. Where is The List? I found its recent deletion somewhat disturbing, since, from any side, it constitutes need for a "missing information" tag, which to me in an encyclopedia, is far more important than more nebulous concerns of free advertising, imbalance, or stretched BLP violations. The article's most important notability is that the book was written, the second is the amazing lack of positive critiques. I do not see that as a lack of balance on Wiki's part, we are limited to RSs, there appear few, so that in part establishes the book's credibility and bona fides. That said, the article mentions his general view, and notes a valid historic similarity; it notes some of his specific claims, and those are specifically counter-claimed. That is balance. Most of the Profs on the list are not mentioned, but their notability is already established, as is obvious by their article, based on their own notability and wiki-whatever elsewhere. If they are mentioned in the article, they do not need to be on the list. If they are not mentioned in the article, why delete them from the list; they are on the list, that is RSd. Are editors concerned of somehow 'embarrassing' a professor because he is mentioned; do we have any COIs between editors and subjects? Equally and oppositely, some of those Profs may well look upon their inclusion as a 'badge of honor'; after all, it is just one notable person's POV versus others, many others. They deserve inclusion; it shows the Profs' bona fides. Provide information and let the reader decide. In any case, I'll keep a copy of the list, since I looked for it when it wasn't included before; I couldn't find it elsewhere. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations are unacceptable by claiming the violations are minor. Do not try to re-insert that list as it stood. You lack consensus. Your arguments denigrate WP policies. If you lack reliable sources, then you lack reliable sources. Don't try to skirt that. Skywriter (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not BLP violation. Did you read the policy? There is more consensus on this page for including the list, than there is to remove it.—DMCer™ 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I will allow others to argue; it is ineffective use of editing time. Have fun. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be a WP:BLP violation. You can't just name and label living people as "dangerous" without publishing a refutation from the subjects in question. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not what anyone's suggesting doing. We're suggesting that we say what's in a book, not that we agree with the book. We can report on the contents of a book without asserting the truth of those contents. That said, there are BLP issues if there are academics who aren't notable on their own, and whose only "claim to fame" is to be listed in this book. That would be undue weight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of context

This non sequitor was deleted from the article. Horowitz uses quotes from the professors he names, and argues that two controversies involving former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers show that administrators refrain from challenging radicals. It was removed in an edit that improved the article and now it has been re-instated in a move that weakens the article.

• That "he uses quotes" is something out of 4th grade, and nothing that adds to knowledge of encyclopedia readers.
• Alluding to but failing to explain "two controversies" is unhelpful to the reader. Summers was the chief administrator. What is the accusation-- that he did not challenge radicals? Summers is famously confrontational. Was he feeling under the weather that day and didn't feel like doing battle in his usual manner?
• What are the page numbers and context for this unsourced material? Skywriter (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll source this and add it back in. I've been busy, but plan to return to this article. You've yet to find any support on removing the list, by the way. The discussion on this page still favors its inclusion.—DMCer™ 19:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on this page shows no consensus on whether or not to include the list. The optimal solution is to find enough responses in reliable sources that we can list individual professors together with their replies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Still more on the List

I propose that we merely add a disclaimer to the list, that it is not presented for the truth of Horowitz's allegations, but for information purposes only. I propose something like this:--68.35.3.66 (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a list of the professors that are the subject of the book. As previously documented, some of Horowitz's analyses may have errors. This list is for information purposes only and not confirmation of Horowitz's decisions to include them in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.3.66 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 March 2010

(List removed per WP:BLP --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

That's hardly a given. I'd like to add my name to the not inconsiderable list of people above who see no BLP violation here. The term "dangerous" is the opinion of the author of the article's book. Not an outright characterization.

What do we need to do to get a consensus here? Take a vote? Because I think it's a majority interpretation. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a vote. See WP:VOTE and WP:CON.

Please explain how it doesn't violate BLP. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the question has been answered quite adequately above and there's no need for me repeat it here. I think your application of WP:BLP in this case is mistaken. The latter as I understand it applies to biographical details which must of course be subject to stringent checks and verifiable sources. It certainly does not apply to critiques made by one academic about another. These are taken for what they are: opinions and not facts. Whether one agrees with that opinion or not is another matter all together. The source in this case is obvious. It is the author. I as a reader have the option of either agreeing with him or not. That is my prerogative. Not the prerogative of an editor.

Please remember this is not a biography but an article on a book. Everything stated in the article pertains to the content of the book and in no way constitutes verbatim truth about anybody.

I ask you to consider these points. If we can't agree what is the next step? Third opinion and RFC seem to have already de facto been tried. Perhaps mediation? Can you suggest some positive step? Regards ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"I believe the question has been answered" If this refers to something previously written, I'm not sure what it is you're referring to. Please repeat or link to the specific answer, because I don't see it.

"I ask you to consider these points." I'm happy to repeat my detailed citations of BLP that apply, which I believe address everything you've written and more. Note that none of these problems have yet been addressed. See The list and More on the list

As this is a continuation of a dispute between multiple editors, it shouldn't be accepted at 3PO, but you're welcome to ask there. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

reset indent, here is my updated disclaimer type text:

This is a list of the academics that Horowitz chose to write about as the subjects of this book. As previously documented, Horowitz's has admitted some errors. This list is for information purposes only and does not represent endorsement of Horowitz's conclusions to include them in the list.

I don't see any BLP issue with the list, it is obviously Horowitz's opinion and the subject of the book. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That fails to address any of the BLP and NPOV concerns brought up. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Those concerns have already been addressed. The subject(s) of the book are a well sourced fact. The list says nothing about them other than who they are and their institutional affiliation. There is no POV involved. Do you really think you can consistently not mention who books are about in wikipedia whenever the title suggests negative opinions may be within?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Those concerns have already been addressed." No, they haven't, as I previously pointed out, "If this refers to something previously written, I'm not sure what it is you're referring to. Please repeat or link to the specific answer, because I don't see it." --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I will add my voice to those who consider the list a BLP violation. There is no consensus to include the list and due to the importance of BLP policy, it seems like a Super-Consensus is in order. It's time for the folks wanting to add the list to initate the dispute resolution process if they actually feel so strongly about it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you would discuss the evidence that it would be a BLP violation. Specifically address what it is about the list, perhaps your concern could be addressed by some modification of the list.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

resent indent Here is the link to the most recent version of the page, with the list so it can be examined by those wanting to form an informed opinion on whether it violates BLP. [1]--68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"It would be more helpful if you would discuss the evidence that it would be a BLP violation." And it is required that you do the so per WP:V and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the list, the first step to an informed opinion. From what I am finding, apparently I am the first. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No. The first step to an informed opinion is to engage in the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've reviewed the BLP standards, the list definitely has no problems with Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability and No original research. The source is of the highest quality, there can be no better source for who Horowitz has this opinion about than the book itself. I don't see any possible libel concerns from having the list in the article.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's no response the the multiple, specific BLP and NPOV concerns that have been brought up on this talk page. See WP:IDHT and WP:TE. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I followed the two links and neither one pointed out any issues I missed, they don't even seem relevant to BLP.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Problems that need to be fixed on the list, plus discussion of BLP and other issues

Extended content

I noticed that Rick Eckstein wikilinks to a ball player and not the Villanova academic. I don't see a page for the academic. How do you convert a wikilink to point to a non-existing page, when a page exists?--68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Apparently Sami al-Arian is no longer and the University of South Florida after his conviction, perhaps his entry should be changed to "formerly of ..." --68.35.3.66 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC) From the Amiri Baraka page, I see no evidence he is still associated with State University of New York at Stony Brook--68.35.3.66 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The Michael Warner wikilink mistakenly points to a professor at Yale. There appears to be no entry for the one at Rutgers, so this needs to be delinked somehow like the Eckstein link. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Mari Matsuda apparently has left Georgetown and is now at William S. Richardson School of Law--68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Norman Finkelstein is apparently no longer at De Paul or with any academic institution. If we conclude the BLP is not an issue for the list, we need to decide whether updating the affiliations is appropriate, or whether the list should somehow be "true" to Horowitz's information. However, perhaps Horowitz up to date on the affiliations and whomever compiled the list just took their last affiliation that Horowitz mentioned.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Nicholas de Genova is no longer affiliated with Columbia. He is a visiting Research Professor in the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies at the University of Amsterdam--68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Lisa Anderson is apparently no longer at Columbia but is now at American University in Cairo--68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick is deceased, but was at the listed university until her death.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I can't tell whether bell hooks is still affiliated with CUNY.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Dessima Williams is apparently Granada's ambassador to the United Nations and no longer affiliated with Brandeis.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Howard Zinn apparently has not been at Boston U since 1988. I don't see a current affiliation.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Since consensus is to keep the list out, this discussion seems inappropriate per WP:TALK, as it is not about improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Have you researched this at all? The BLP issue relative to Horowitz may already have been decided. He is referenced on approximately half a dozen of the professors pages, if this has previously been abjudicated, apparently no problem was seen with it. However, I certainly won't restore the list to the article page if there is a dispute. The issue of the corrections needs to be decided as well. regards. I doubt someone would be calling for a super-consensus if there wasn't a consensus for putting it in the article. Are you saying you would oppose the list even if BLP has gone against your opinion? --68.35.3.66 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC) You edit war on the talk page better than anybody I've ever met. I will honor your collapse, thanx for not destroying the information. But please don't try to hide our discussions. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I've completed the review of the list. I think the issues raised in the hidden section should be addressed before the list is added, if as I suspect there are no real BLP issues. My review was only for consistency and relied up the wikipedia pages of the professors, so if those are incorrect, even the corrections may be. Where there didn't seem to be current affiliations, I did cursory searches and following of links to see if I could find an update. I updated one of the pages based upon this. Horowitz's opinions or the discussion in his book was mentioned on 7 or 8 of the pages. Two or three of those seemed to have involved responses by the professors.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)