Talk:Howard Zinn

What TV series in 2007?

I have removed the following paragraph to talk page because it does not appear to be true. If a series is scheduled to run this year, there'd be a lot more PR about it. The linky has been absent any new information for a long time. I suspect an option was taken and came to naught, as so often happens with up to 96% of options taken to make films.

removed: Zinn was a consultant to the six-part documentary A People's History of the United States [1], a television series produced by Alvin H. Perlmutter. According to the documentary's website, the series is expected to be broadcast in 2007.

If there's any news about this, it can go back to article. Otherwise its predictive value is greatly lessened.Skywriter 13:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that a documentary based on "A People's History" will be "broadcast in 2007" is still listed in the article. Given that it's 2008, someone may want to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the external links section...

...are all of those legitimate, reputable and not redundant? Usually such sections that size get drive-by insertions of questionable sites... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting

I'm semi-protecting the article for a while to try to quiet some persistent and tedious vandalism. Pinkville (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

“anarchist AND socialist”?

I recently used this Wikipedia entry for a brief bio of Zinn for an event announcement. A wise and experienced activist wrote me:

I wonder, does he himself say he is an “anarchist and socialist”? How can he be both.? My understanding is that an anarchist believes in no laws or government, whereas a socialist believes in government where the people are all involved.

FWIW, on the biography page of howardzinn.org they lead off with a quote from the Harper Collins website: "Howard Zinn is a historian, playwright, and social activist." Nowhere on that bio page does "anarchist" appear. Nonukes (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Like most such topics, the matter is highly complex. There is a vast array of ideological positions that include syndicalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism, anarchist communism, and other labels. This is entirely separate from the question of whether Zinn is described in reliable sources as any flavor of anarchist. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (IWW I.U. 660)

It is complicated, but Zinn, during one of the autobiographical passages in a recent publication says while discussing his experiences in World War ll, "But disillusionment with the Soviet Union didn't diminish my belief in socialism any more that disillusionment with the US diminished my belief in democracy." Who knows what he is now, but Zinn makes it clear that he was a socialist then. Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Zinn refers to himself as an anarchist and a socialist (see this interview from 2008 and this one from 2003). A contradiction arises with these terms only if one adheres to the expediently reductionist definitions of "anarchism" and "socialism" put forth by corporate media, Pravda, etc. There is a strain of anarchism that believes in no laws, but that is certainly not the one that Zinn and others (e.g. Chomsky) are interested in. The anarchist tradition of Zinn overlaps left socialism (and is also called called libertarian socialism), and seeks to create a society in which there is no authority (or at least where any authority is minimised and which must be rationally justified, e.g. parents may make certain decisions for their children, etc.). In such a society, as in left socialism, decision making would be shared by all, not the privilege of a few. Pinkville (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist historians (American)

There seems to be a question as to Zinn status as a "revisionist" historian. Although he is/was never a Holocaust denier, he is a "revisionist historian" regarding that other usage. So though the term requires DISAMBIGUATION, it is an important fact that he's categorized under that "revisionist" label. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The article Revisionist historians (American) is inadequacy sourced. It would be nice to hear other opinions on this. Dynablaster (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not an article yet - it's just a stub. But the expression, "revisionist" with respect to American historians is very well documented. So it would be nice to have others help write this article too. I don't want to be the only one. But Zinn is one of these so-called "revisionists." This expression is used in many places to classify well-respected American historians. Unfortunately, Holocaust deniers would like to be though of as being a part of these scholars - but they are not - except according to themselves. But there is a link - that true - through a historian named "Barnes." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, it's a poorly-sourced and poorly-written stub about a subject of some controversy, and attaching this term right now violates WP:BLP. Sure, this term probably has been applied to him, but the article needs proper references and an encyclopedic tone and formatting before we use it in an article about a living person. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The controversy that you're concerned about is the result of of other expressions, one of which may be a neologism sanctioned by Wikipedia: historical revisionism (negationism). But that other - legitimate - usage predates the rise holocaust deniers. There is nothing disparaging about the earlier usage - except that of being on the left of center (not a right-winger for sure, or even being a Democrat rather than a Republican. But I do not understand why you are critical of a {{:stub}} - a "stub" needs development. Furthermore, the stub does give a set of individuals with which Zinn is associated. And none of these would libel Zinn by associating him with them. In fact, all are extremely reputable American historians. So your "honest" objection does not contribute to the discussion regarding the issue of Zinn's status as a "revisionist," as American historians were classified before holocaust denial gain predominance. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My problem isn't that it links to a stub, it's that the article needs a complete rewrite to be comprehensible. I mean, with statements like "This usage is to be distinguished from the one which makes reference to the class of authors known as Holocaust deniers who also call themselves "revisionist historians."", an average reader is going to say, "I don't know what that means, but I see something about being a Holocaust denier" even though (I believe) the exact opposite is meant. I'll be in favor of linking to it once the stub is neutral, referenced, and encyclopedic. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I certainly agree with you. But just because Wikipedia's article(s) is/are poorly written, does not justify omitting the fact that Zinn is commonly known among scholars as a revisionist. If you don't like how these articles are written, by all means, please edit them. But don't engage in newspeak and censor out this fact because you wish to protect Zinn, or the reader, from misunderstanding. That's not the right way to be informative in an encyclopedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BLP, that is exactly what we must do. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is ("must do"), but it seems appropriate to remind you of our American Freedom of the Press rights. Howard Zinn is a revisionist historian, and there are (many) sources for that fact - he's in the class of historians to which William Appleman Williams belongs (that's not bad company - unless you're a (extreme) right winger. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I noticed that the fact that Zinn belongs to that class of historians has been simply deleted - on the grounds that it does not belong in the "lede"(sic) paragraph. So why not put it elsewhere - I think a delete is inappropriate. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just Reverted the effective Reversion. If this fact should not be in the "lede" [sic} - then it should be placed elsewhere - but not simply deleted, removed, or reverted. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And here's a list of other notable "revisionists" with whom Zinn is associated - all reputable American historians:

• Gabriel Kolko
• Gar Alperovitz
• Howard Zinn
• Sidney B. Fay
• Walter LaFeber
• William Appleman Williams

So please do not remove the fact from the article - the fact of his being grouped with these notable American scholars. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Two points. First of all, there is no purpose whatsoever in simply applying a label ("revisionist") in the lede or anywhere else in the article without explaining how that is related to Zinn. Who called him a revisionist? What views did he challenge and revise? You say there are many sources referring to him as a revisionist, yet no sources have been provided. Second of all, I agree totally with those editors who question a link to the very poor article stubb. Providing some consensus is reached to include the term at all, then a better link is to the article Historical revisionism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I at first was taken back by the idea of Zinn as a revisionist, I agree with the use of the term here as it is linked to the newly created revisionist historians (American) article. Paul Buhle in the forward to Zinn's A Peoples History of American Empire (2008) says of Zinn, that he "set a new standard for the retelling (my emphasis) of the nation's story." "Retelling" is just another word for "revision." I vote that the term be retained in this article. Whooops Carptrash (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the only thing that "retelling" implies is that something is being told again. You miss the point of the objections that have been raised. Of course the article already explains what is new and significant about "A People's History of the United States". What is missing is any link IN THE ARTICLE to historical revisionism and that book. It is poor wikipedia writing to throw in a term in the lede and then leave it to the reader to find how that relates to the body of the article. I'm not saying the info doesn't exist -- I'm saying its not in the article.

The second problem is that if the reader follows the link to revisionist historians (American) they don't learn anything relevant to Howard Zinn. At worse, they will assume that Zinn must have written primarily about WW I and foreign affairs since that's all the article addressed. Do you really believe that this article stubb gives a reader a better understanding of the subject than the article Historical revisionism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's one reference:

• The Cold War as Rhetoric: The Beginnings, 1945-1950, by Lynn Boyd Hinds, Theodore Otto Windt Jr.; (Praeger Publishers, 1991. 272 pgs.)

This 1991 text explicitly lists certain American historians as "revisionists." I'm not going to engage in "original research." The fact is that scholars have been explicitly classify certain American historians as "revisionist," and they do not bother to explain what that means except by discribing the particular works on certain explicit topics as exhibiting such "revisionism." The sources I have found (1) name certain American historians as "revisionists," and (2) the work identified as such involves (a) the view, in the 1920's and shortly thereafter, as absolving Germany of "war guilt" with respect to World War I, and (b) the view, expressed in the 1960's, showing the responsibility of the United States for the Cold War (not just blaming the Soviet Union. It's the holocaust deniers, on the other hand, who are concerned with calling themselves "revisionists." These latter, like David Irving, would love to be in the company of Howard Zinn, but unfortunately for them, if the connection exists, it's only due to the sloppiness of the Editing at Wikipedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I just glanced at the wikipedia article Historical revisionism and discovered that it begins:

Within historiography, that is the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations and decision-making processes surrounding an historical event. The assumption of the revisionist is that the interpretation of a historical event or period as it is accepted by the majority of scholars needs a significant change.

It seems to me that this definition fits Zinn's work pretty well. We don't really need the new article at all. Do we? Carptrash (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But we do. That article, "Historical revisionism," I think, is primarily "original research" in my opinion. The problem is that these American historians I wrote about are not known to have formulated an explicit historiography, the way Toynbee, for example, has. Nevertheless, it's common scholarly knowledge who these "American revisionists" were. I do not agree that it's appropriate for us to write out a methodology for these historians if (1) they did do so, (2) and there are no studies by secondary scholars explaining what such a "revisionist" believed in. Wikipedia does not allow us to engage in "original research." So I think that the "header" needs editing. If you look carefully, you should be able to see that I'm not responsible for the header, and neither am I responsible for the article to which it links. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice, also, that there's no reference for the "nice" quote you found. I believe that it's "original research" by the editors Wikipedia there. Should i offer you $1,000 if you find me a scholarly reference for that in and work on historiography? I don't believe you'll find such a source - because it's purely the "original research" Wikipedia editors. Now it's true that historians may discover new archival material, or claim that some "facts" have been misinterpreted, and proceed to write and publish a new work presenting a historical even with a novel interpretations. But that's just what historians do all the time - it is not a novel historiographical methodology as is claimed by these WP editors. Hope I've made my point. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read through this thread and do not support the inclusion of the term revisionist in this article on grounds it is unnecessarily vague and the advocate has provided no sources for its inclusion. Like "reform" , the term revisionism is in the eye of the beholder and can mean different things to different people.Skywriter (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue was previously discussed. Nothing new has been added this time around except the attempt to use the Wikipedia article Revisionist historians (American) as support for including the term "revisionist" in the Zinn article. Ah... that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The (mere) existence of a Wikipedia article (no matter how good) on a given subject in no way lends support to the inclusion of content in another Wikipedia article, nor can one Wikipedia article be used as a source for another. Please see the archived discussion for further reasons not use the term "revisionist". Pinkville (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent revert

(cur) (prev) 05:27, October 12, 2009 Vector by (talk | contribs) (43,307 bytes) (Undid revision 318306958 by Monsieurchristophe (talk)) (undo)

Vector has removed the link to the May 2009 interview of Zinn by Zirin and given no reason for doing so. This action will therefore be canceled. Skywriter (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we know the copyright status of the video? I could be wrong here, but it doesn't appear to have been uploaded by its author. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

do not add in the link to the interviewVector by (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Vector does not have consensus to remove a factual link to a 6-part video interview the subject of this article by a journalist. While Vector's personal point of view may not like the subject of this article or the interviewer, this is not cause for removing the link.

Vector, your reply do not add in the link to the interview is not an argument; it is a command. Good luck with that. Consider reading Wikipedia guidelines for reaching consensus.

As to the copyright status, Youtube handles that and would remove material when requested by copyright owner. If the Wyatt Riot premise is correct, which I think it is not, we can start removing every single link to Youtube on every article on Wikipedia.Skywriter (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because there are too many external links, if you want to add it in then remove one of the previous ones. As far as consensus, it is a two way street, you have no consensus to add the link. I am keeping the article in the most stable form. Vector by (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind the 3 revert rule, etc... There is no rule on the number of external links allowed, and the 11 in this article hardly seem excessive. I don't believe you have yet adequately justified removing this particular link. finally, consensus isn't needed for adding content unless there is existing contention... not the case here. Pinkville (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL makes it clear that "[s]ome external links are welcome . . . but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". Please see WP:LINKFARM. YouTube is specifically referenced in WP:ELNEVER and WP:YOUTUBE. Our policies on biographies of living persons states that "[e]xternal links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles". In this case, the onus is on those who wish to add the link to provide a rationale, and also for providing proof that it does not violate any copyright. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wyatt Riot, the onus is on the objectors to show copyright violation. If the journalist who uploaded five separate parts of an interview he conducted had not intended for it to be in the public realm, it would not be there. Zirin had complete control of the film and for anyone to argue copyright violation defies logic. I do not believe Zirin's copyright is your true concern. I think you don't like Zirin or Zinn. I watched all five segments of that interview and consider it to be of high quality. If you want to argue the interview is not of high quality, that viewpoint is equally subjective as the POV that it is high quality in which case we can go to the mat on whether to suppress viewpoints or to air them. I thank you for not starting a revert war. Skywriter (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I've been invited to (continue to) discuss this issue... The interview is remarkable and worthwhile for its length, informality, and interest in revealing Zinn's thought, etc. As the eleventh external link it is not an excessive addition, and anyway, is markedly beneficial for an understanding of Zinn (therefore, it ought to be included, regardless of the number of links); the many examples of excessive linking that I have seen in Wikipedia have none of these virtues. Pinkville (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm discouraged that there should be so much discussion over such a minor issue as the inclusion of an external-linked video interview. What's the harm? A question that has yet to be addressed. Pinkville (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My primary concern at this point is one of copyright, but I also fear that we're on a slippery slope of links. Especially since the other videos are hosted by their copyright owners, this one sticks out like a sore thumb. I wouldn't be opposed to its inclusion if we can establish that there is no copyvio and also if something more were included in the EL section, maybe a title or a brief description of the talk. Or, better yet, if we could include some of Zinn's comments from the interview in the article itself. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note the wording in WP restrictions on linking: Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright... Ad Skywriter's assessment seems to me sound that the copyright is probably with the International Socialists and that the videos were posted by the same so that there is no infringement. Pinkville (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is free to make constructive additions. According to the YouTube data that accompanies the video clips, the Zirin interview was posted to YouTube May 2, 2009, by someone from the International Socialist Organization, which hosted the Dave Zirin sitdown interview with Zinn at University of Wisconsin. I see no hint of copyright violation with this YouTube video. ISO is likely the copyright holder. Zinn appears in quite a few YouTube videos. If copyright holder had objected, Google would have taken it down. Skywriter (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, external links in this article "must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles". It may not be copyvio but we have no real proof either way, especially since it's not hosted by the copyright holder. The argument that no copyright holder has yet complained to YouTube is besides the point. This should be removed until we know for a fact that copyright is not being infringed. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of infringement, Wyatt Riot?

Zirin is a member of ISO.[2] ISO placed the video on YouTube. The videos begin and end with a plug for Haymarket Books, the ISO publisher. Are you claiming Zirin has violated his own or ISO's copyright? What exactly is your argument? Where is the evidence? What are your proofs? Why are you wasting our time with this revert war? Skywriter (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that proves nothing. Besides the fact that your argument is based on original research, there is no proof that the copyright holder of the video actually posted it on YouTube. The video could easily have been taken from elsewhere and uploaded by a fan, something that happens quite often. I'll admit that it probably is legitimate, but that doesn't cut it on BLP articles. 2 editors have requested that this video be removed but you and Pinkville (an admin, no less!) keep reinstating it. Keep in mind that "[t]he burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines" (WP:BLP). It's not up to me to prove that it's copyvio, but for you to prove that it isn't. At this time, I would strongly suggest removing the link until we can work this matter out and attain some kind of consensus. The only alternative is seeking help at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Wyatt Riot (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the original research you allege, User:Wyatt Riot? Skywriter (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Speculating about the uploader based on those facts is WP:SYNTHESIS, plain and simple. Never mind, though, I see this is going nowhere. I've brought it up at the BLP noticeboard. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is speculative, Wyatt and your arguments rapidly changing. The YouTube video reference you want so badly to remove, without consensus on this board, are clearly marked as to origin and credit. Your arguments are moving targets. At one point, you argue there are too many references and this particular link should be removed for the reason that there are too many. At another point, you contend (but show no evidence) of copyright violation (but fail to state whose copyright) and then you amend that argument to say you would like to quote from the video that you'd earlier claimed violated some unspecified person's copyright and you say you'd like to insert quotes from that video into the article. Do you know what you want? Skywriter (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me try this again. The video is most likely copyrighted, by the ISO or possibly a parent organization of the ISO, or maybe by the individual who filmed it. Hell, maybe the ISO declares all of their content to be public domain or Creative Commons licensed. We just don't know. In any case, the video was uploaded to YouTube by someone who may or may not be the copyright holder or affiliated with the copyright holder(s). The use of leet in his username makes it seem highly questionable to me. (As I said at the BLP noticeboard, when I see a video uploaded by a user named "M3T4LL1CA", for example, my gut instinct says he doesn't own the copyright.) I didn't notice a clear copyright attribution in the video, and we have no other way of knowing that the copyright holder(s) approves of this video appearing on YouTube. Now, as this is a BLP article, we need to be extremely conservative in our editing and avoid any semblance of impropriety. It is also Wikipedia policy (again, especially true in BLP articles) that it's the responsibility of those who add material (or revert the removal of material) to verify that it meets all of our policies. (For example, if someone were to come along and remove one of the unreferenced paragraphs, the person who reverted that removal would be in the wrong unless they provide a proper citation.) This video may not violate anyone's copyright--again, I don't have a clue if it does or doesn't--but we simply don't know at this point, and nobody has yet provided adequate evidence that it meets Wikipedia policy. The best thing to do, at this point, is to remove the video until we can straighten everything out. Now, if we do verify that copyright isn't an issue, we can move on to how the video should be used in the article. Personally, I'm torn about whether or not it should even appear in the external links section. I think we're already on a slippery slope, getting to the point where we have too many links, but if this video is especially valuable I would be fine with keeping it as long as we give a brief description of its contents, maybe a title, something like that. (As an aside, I think the rest of the external links could use the same treatment.) However, I can also see where it could detract from the section, as we already have a number of "notable" interviews (and by that I mean interviews hosted by notable or reputable organizations) and this just seems like a random YouTube video tacked on at the end. (I can't speak for Vector by, but I think this is his position.) If we do decide to keep it in the external links section, okay, but if we don't then I'm sure the interview can act as a reference for the article itself, maybe provide some quotations or something. But I think that discussion is a little premature now, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

So, to summarize: the video's status on YouTube is questionable. Because of the nature of this article and because at least two editors have removed the video, it's up to those who want it here to prove that it meets all Wikipedia policies. (I'll help, I just don't know where we would start.) If we verify that it does policy, we can then discuss how to use the video, but that's probably premature at this point.

I'll also ask that you remain civil and assume good faith here, Skywriter. We both ultimately have the same goal: writing a better encyclopedia article about Howard Zinn. Copyright violations--even potential ones--are a big concern of mine, as I believe they discredit the reputation of the whole project, not to mention the individual articles where they appear. I hope this helps you understand my position, which I personally feel is backed up by Wikipedia policy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave Zirin owns the copyright and said of course Wikipedia can host the link. Skywriter (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it, Skywriter. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to unwatch this page. Your method of interacting with other editors is something that I simply don't have time to deal with. Good luck with the article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Awards, references in pop culture and other accomplishments

Noam Chomsky's entry has a separate section "filmography" which includes all the documentaries he's been in. I'm pretty new at editing, but this seems like a good idea for Prof. Zinn as well. Simsimian (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Family info in intro

The info on his wife, children, grandchildren, and the neighborhood he lives seem a little out of place in the intro, which I tend to feel should be more about his "notability" as we say on WP. BTW he is quite an interesting guy. My father was also in the Air Force in WW2 and came to feel much the same way as Zinn. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Where would you move the personal bio info to? Skywriter (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The body of the article, a new section if needed, but not the intro. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You Tube Revisited

A new user has twice added a direct link to You Tube (see diff [3]) from the article. The intent is to use it as a source for a statement by Zinn regarding 9-11. I have reverted this twice -- once assuming good faith and the second time assuming vandalism. The problems, other than style, are that (1) unlike the You Tube link discussed above, this link is not supported by Zinn or someone he agreed to e interviewed by and (2) at best it is a primary source that is being used to support an opinion by the wikipedia editor. The link to You Tube is [4]. In any event, I do not feel that this link, or material based on this link, belong in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I entered the article about Zinn and 9-11, with the video of zinn commenting on his views on the subject, once you watch the video, there is no way you can denial he his claming that America policy, caused the attack.--Crt43 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me refer you to WP:PSTS which states:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

You are trying to provide your personal analysis of the content of the television comments that may or may not have been taken out of context. Whatever Zinn’s views may be on 9-11, they can only be reported in wikipedia to the extent that they are analyzed by reliable secondary sources (as opposed to political blogs). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New user & sourced statmets

This was added by xlinkbot to new anonymous user's pg. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Howard Zinn has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2007/12/13/howard-zinns-revisionist-peoples-history-comes-tv (matching the regex rule \bnewsbusters\.org). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am again reverting unsourced material. Skywriter (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Even with proper sourcing, there is zero value in adding a criticism section consisting entirely of negative book critiques and perceived shortcomings (real or imagined). The proper place for these reviews is on the relevant article (A People's History of the United States). It is decidedly one-sided to cut and paste the negative reviews and omit entirely the positive ones. Wikispan (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight.

I'm not allowed to write anything critical since it's a biography on a living person and I'm also not allowed to quote critics.

And this is according to the rules set down by Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torckey (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Torckey, please follow the advisory links (above) so that you may learn what are acceptable sources for inclusion in encyclopedia. You quote a blogger Mariel Garza saying "A People's History contains these words. "One among them slew his wife as she slept in his bosom, cut her to pieces, salted her and fed upon her till he had clean devoured all parts saving her head." I just checked. It does not. Please cite reliable and truthful sources. Skywriter (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Skywriter. The statements and this article fall under WP:BLP, which is followed very strictly. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto from another Zinn watcher. Carptrash (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On a single article about a well known politician I counted over 25 cases in which a critic was quoted.

The preceding unsigned statement was added by Torckey though it is unclear to what Torckey refers.

Skywriter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the quotes provided by Torckey have no attributed source. It seems clear, however, that the ACTUAL source for ALL of his/her edit is an unsigned article here [5]. It seems like Torckey has deliberately hidden the actual source of his edit. In order to be taken seriously, Torckey needs to:

1. Establish that this website represents a reliable source,
2. Explain why he left out the positive comments from the website,
3. Establish that each person quoted is a reliable source,
4. Establish where the quotes came from originally, and
5. Establish that the quotes are not taken out of context.

If all of the above is accomplished, then the next task is to provide a balanced section. All Torckey is providing is an entirely negative section with an overriding theme that the commentators don't like his politics.

To show the extent of the bias involved in the selective quotes, one of the sources (O'Brien) writes of Zinn's work, "This book is built on the personal accounts of these young men and women. It is journalism; it is “human interest”; and it is valuable." Compare this to what Torckey (and the website) choose to write concerning O'Brien, “SNCC is not going to save the world. By suggesting it could, Zinn places SNCC's true greatness in a possible (but very doubtful) future; and he needn't have.” Seems to me there is a much more nuanced review out there than Torckey would have us believe. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting I just looked at Al Sharpton's article and no one objected to quoting critics there. Torckey

NPOV/Unbalanced

There are thousands of other articles on living people that include quotes from critics and this article should be no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torckey (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 January 2010

The point has been made above, but let me repeat. The criticism needs to be substantive and provided by a reliable source. Your suggestions are neither. Pinkville (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. Tagging the article with an NPOV tag is inappropriate without supplying a rationale for the tag, which you have not done. Pinkville (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your comments by typing 4 tildes : ~~~~ Pinkville (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have written the reason but let me put it this way.

I have been trying to ad quotes from critics to this page and Zinn's fans have been removing them. --Torckey (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a pov dispute. Read WP:NPOV. If you have any dispute based upon WP:NPOV, please make it. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's something for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Criticism_and_praise

--Torckey (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

Or maybe, "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

Multiple editors have now insisted that you provide reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Please provide them. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have provided reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability and the fact that others saw fit to remove them is why (among other reasons) this article is obviously unbalanced. --Torckey (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)