Talk:Grover Furr

"Communist," "Anti-Revisionist"

I am in contact with the subject of the article, and he has stated that he considers the putting up of both categories as slanderous and, potentially, libelous. As such I've removed them for possible BLP violations. --Ismail (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't put only what Dr. Furr approves of. Other people think of him this way, whether right or wrong. They are not BLP violations. It appears you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI. Bgwhite (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a "conflict of interest." He isn't a relative, I don't work at the University, I'm not a student and I don't know him personally. Categories aren't based on "people think of [the subject] this way," but on verified information from reliable sources. --Ismail (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be a relative or student of Furr to have a COI.

Dr. Furr's own words,"Billions of workers all over the world are exploited, murdered, tortured, oppressed by capitalism. The greatest historical events in the twentieth century -- in fact, in all of human history -- have been the overthrow of capitalism and establishment of societies run by and for the working class in the two great communist revolutions in Russia and China." "The Russian Revolution was the first of them, blazing the trail for all revolutionaries to come. Its history -- its successes and failures -- are the essential textbook for all workers and others who recognize the need to get rid of exploitation and build a better world run by those who toil." (http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/furr.html)

People who call him communist/stalinist/marxist. In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, The politically incorrect guide to English and American literature anti-capitalist views

What does Dr. Furr's own political page have, that in his words, "Here are the sites I have found most useful, informative, and accurate, both for those trying to understand the world, and those of us who are trying to change it." Note, only Stalinist/communist/leftist links are present

The Revolutionary Communist Progressive Labor Party's page is, "I have found this to be the best of the "alternative" sources. Relentlessly anti-capitalist, resolutely pro-worker and pro-employee generally, it's the best source of class analysis of the world's events. "

"CAPITALISM looks very different in reality from the rosy portrayal it receives in the mainstream media and textbooks! Look to these sites in order to understand how exploitation affects you, and what you can do about it. "

"Here are a list of both WWW sites and of some specific essays from those sites, that help to expose the authoritarianism, exploitation and murder behind the façade of democracy in the United States."

Finally, from a talk of his, "That's why I feel some kinship with Stalin and the communist movement of his day. What the majority of humanity needs today is an international movement like that one, to co-ordinate the fight against exploitation...It's not impossible. Such an international organization existed, just a few decades ago. It can be done. I think the future of all of us, and of our children and grandchildren, depends very profoundly upon when -- how soon -- this kind of movement against exploitation and its horrors arises in this world again." Bgwhite (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Marxist Historians" category notes, "This category includes self-defined Marxist historians." Can you find any case of him referring to himself as a Marxist and historian, or any reliable sources referring to him as such? In Denial does not refer to him as anything, and the other sources you listed aren't reliable sources on this point. The "American Communists" category "lists people who have, at time or another, been active members of a communist party." Do you have any reliable sources on Furr meeting this criteria? --Ismail (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct on "American Communists". I'm sorry that I didn't read it. However, Marxist Historian is correct and should be kept. He espouses Marxist views (see above). Hmmm, feels kinship to Stalin and his communist movement and wants that kind of movement to happen again... If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Hmm, if I said I have kinship toward Hitler and can't wait to see all the Jews dead, but never said I was anti-semitic, I still think a anti-semitic tag was appropriate. Sorry it stays in. Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Where has he ever called himself a Marxist historian? As noted, the category itself notes, "This category includes self-defined Marxist historians." I also disagree with the "Controversy" section since I don't think being attacked by David Horowitz and some internet websites is enough to justify its length. Not to mention it is original research to go "oh hey, Grover Furr says this, this sounds pretty controversial so I'll put it in with a source of him saying it." --Ismail (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, he espouses marxist theology and hopes for a communist revolution. Quack. Duck. End of story. The "Controversy" section... I added references to his sayings directly, but there are a ton of references out there. Type in his name into Google and their are several hits in the first 10 links. The one reference not to Furr was to the The Higher Ed about him being controversial. Saying the US is the biggest mass murderer and Stalin was for democracy is controversial. He is a controversial person. Saying he is controversial is neither good nor bad. Darwin was and is controversial. Galileo was controversial in his time.

I have no personal feelings about him. I never heard of him until I saw the page in my daily review of new incoming articles. I actually find him interesting. I like to expand on articles I find interesting. Furr is the complete opposite of the last one I helped on, Ralph Dewey... well I found that more bizarre than anything. It's going to be on the April 1st edition of DYK with the tag of... He blows up animals for Jesus. However, [his version of Jesus is creepy. Bgwhite (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Bgwhite, a "Marxist historian" isn't a historian who holds pro-communist views. Above all, a "Marxist historian" is a historian who follows historical materialism. What is "marxist theology"? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just read something very worrying: "he espouses marxist theology and hopes for a communist revolution. Quack. Duck. End of story." Even if it is true, this is a BLP. We do not post everything about a person that is true. We post only what secondary and tertiary sources speak about. For an experienced editor who has been around the block more than once, BGWhite, you seem not to understand what a BLP is and how it is to be treated. Specifically, while it is true that the subject's opinion on how he is described in wikipedia if there is sourcing is irrelevant, primary source material cannot be used to describe him by "inference". That is synthesis which is original research - which shouldn't be done.

It is also a serious misunderstanding of what COI, a policy I have helped craft, is about. There is no COI violation here, and your suggestion that there is one is hard to understand.--Cerejota (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

original research

I have removed some quotes described as controversial in the article, and this has been restored by BGWhite with the comment "this has been discussed before".

Well, it might have been discussed before, but this is a WP:BLP and of course consensus can change.

So lets examine the matter, and make sure we get this right:

1. This is a BLP - we have to be kind, and careful, with the treatment of the subject: regardless of how in agreement or disagreement with the views. This means that the standard for inclusion should be much higher than for non-BLP articles.
2. The removed quotes are all primary source material, that is, there is no question he said these things. However, WP:NOR and WP:RS warn us that primary source material should only be included if its used in secondary and tertiary sources - as a way to flesh out the contentions in these sources.
3. The description of the ideas as "controversial" is a violation of WP:NPOV, prima facie. This is the random opinion of a random editor. We need to find a reliable, secondary source that describes these opinions as "controversial" and explain to whom and why these opinions are controversial. Wikipedia is edited and read by a wide range of people, including those to whom these opinions are not controversial. We cannot disrespect them and the project by describing something in the editorial voice nakedly in this way.
4. The use of the word "controversial" without sourced discussion of why it is controversial also goes against the spirit of WP:WTA in particular it is weasel wording.

Put simply, when I read this section, it immediately jumped to me how unencyclopedic it was - without my editor hat - and with my editor hat, how poorly constructed it was in terms of conveying information in the spirit and letter of the content criteria.

It struck me that there were naked claims (controversy), made without sourcing or explanation, and that the quotes were cherry-picked by some editor, rather than highlighted in a reliable sources. This is the hallmark of a BLP attack.

In fact, I doubt Grover Furr meets notability criteria - the only mention is in David Horowitz's partisan list, which hardly counts as significant coverage. But lets see if this can be saved because there is some vague WP:AUTHOR claim that could be made.

Lastly, if there is insistence in including this content, then we have a problem that needs wider community attention, and to keep it centralized I believe the BLP board would be the place. I do remain hopeful that the argument is understood as correct and that the previous editing ill considered. We all make mistakes, but there is no deadline. --Cerejota (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• First off, putting other experienced editors down is not good. If you can't discuss civilly without reverting everything, then leave.
• Two. I put in references to what he said. If you want refs if they are controversial, then turn to Google and not getting rid of everything. Type "U.S. among them, are the biggest mass murderers in history" into Google and you will get TON of hits. Instead of reverting something you don't like, spend 60 seconds to get your refs that YOU want.
• Three. Grover definitely meets GNG. Again, why don't you spend 30 seconds and see all refs in news and websites.

Instead of hauling things to other venues... just do a search. egads... talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I didn't write most of what is on the page, but hey, call everyone a lousy writer. If you don't like it, fix it or label it with a tag. Just don't put people down.

Finally, don't dare revert. Put in refs first or a questions without putting other people down. Bgwhite (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been civil and have not addressed you in an uncivil manner - if you feel I haven't, please take me to a board that handles these issues and lets resolve the matter for good. I believe, however, that we should focus on the content not the editors.

GNG says, very directly, that there has to be wide-spread, independent, reliable source coverage. All I am able to find is information on Frontline's campaign against him and subsequent coverage related to it. We need better sourcing to establish notability. A mention in a partisan's source partisan campaign, and the repetition of this in other sources, doesn't count as "multiple and independent" as per GNG. Please do not remove the tag until this is addressed, as per tagging guidelines.

I did mention that even if he doesn't meet GNG, he might yet meet WP:AUTHOR, and possibly WP:PROF, but I have not been able to ascertain this. However, surely someone as experienced as you knows that one can raise a concern, and not be the person to resolve it - either for time limitations or lack of skill. This is after all, the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Again, you are insisting in including synthesis material: the sources provided do not say what you say they do and the primary sources constitute a prima facie WP:QUOTEFARM with WP:COATRACK implications. I have no problem, as shown in my editing, with mentioning the Frontline thingy, because it is a notable partisan source. But the lack of non-partisan sources highlighting any of the quotes means you are cherry picking them, which in the definition of original research and synthesis, as I have already explained.

This content violates every principle, policy, and guideline on content in wikipedia, and hence is subject to summary removal, even if you believe it to be true.

Lastly I am as experienced as you are, AWB edit inflation does not intimidate me. But that is irrelevant. I do recommend you take a refresher look at WP:OWN.--Cerejota (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you have to get more digs in with the "AWB edit inflation" and "surely someone as experienced as you". So, nice to see you are civil when you revert, so it is your way or the highway and then get digs in. STOP with the digs. You saw focus on the article, but you just have to put digs in don't you.

Lets, see newspaper articles about him, magazine articles about him, book written by him, papers written by him... There were five independent, reliable references about him in the article, thus satifying WP:GNG, but you just have to blast them away and say he is not notable.

The three refs backed up all the "controversies" except for the Wikipedia quote. Accuracy in Media labeled him one of the worst professors for his views on Stalin. Inside Higher Ed talked about his College and Universities quote. Pittsburg Review had Stalin and mass murderer quotes. This doesn't even mention, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. All are notable, independent sources.

I have not mentioned Frontline. Frontline was never in the article. I'm not aware of any Frontline thingy. The only Frontline I'm aware of is the PBS show. If you have a ref, then put it in because I'm not aware of it.

I have refs showing people think he is controversial. I have refs showing he is notable.

At this point, you are the one reverting sourced material. You are the one who is disregarding GNG. You are the one with the digs. Now stop it. If you disagree, then take it else where. Bgwhite (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources, but partisan sources opposing his views. And none of them describe his views as generally controversial, but controversial to the sources. Lets attribute the opinions. We have an example: the Horowitz source and quote is entirely appropriate - and I have left it in my edits and reversions. I am still not convinced this is GNG, so please while consensus is achieved, do not remove the tag as you did (And claimed would restore, but five minutes later you had not).

Then there is the issue of the WP:QUOTEFARM: none of the sources presented as quotes is referenced in any secondary or tertiary sources. None. So their inclusion goes against sourcing policy and sourcing guidelines, in particular those against original research and synthesis, as I have already explained. If any of the reliable sources cite a specific work or quote, then I have no objection to their inclusion, in whole or in part.

I do apologize for what you feel are digs, and perhaps they were inartful responses, but they were indeed responses to your claims that being an experienced editor somehow gave you authority. Likewise, in your edit summaries you make claims as to me "not liking" the material. That is disrespectful of the time I have taken to explain my objections, and my edits. I neither like nor dislike the material. In fact, personally, I dislike the works of Grover Furr and find them pseudo-scientific. So it is also a disrespectful misrpresentation of my views. I do believe in focusing in the content, not the editor, but what is good for the goose is good for gander. So if you do not want to be questioned personally, please return the courtesy. --Cerejota (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually two hours and 5 minutes later. I had a time error. That is an unacceptable amount of time. --Cerejota (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I said, "putting other experienced editors down is not good." I in no way claimed any authority. I only asked you to be civil and stop putting me down. You have refused. I only object to your uncivility in which you just blamed on me. Please don't apologize and then turn around in dig more. STOP STOP STOP I'm begging you to stop putting in digs!!!

What do you mean a time error?

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is a daily newspaper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This is not a partisan source. It is just a standard newspaper in the United States. It makes mention of the University quote. It mentions Stalin and democracy. Stalin and killing people.

Inside Higher Ed is a standard web based publication about Higher education. It is a reputable publication read by alot of scholars. It comes from people who worked at The Chronicle of Higher Education. It is not a partition publication. It says the University quote.

Accuracy In Media is a non-partison, non-profit group that reports on the media. Some have said it has a conservative lean. It does not mention the quotes, but does mention Stalin was not responsible mass murder. Guess what, they have a problem with that, Shock. Furr was the first prof listed. The third prof is from BYU (conservative school) and they have a problem with his conservative ways. I think this is a non-partison ref.

FrontPage Magazine is a conservative leaning group that mentions most of what Furr has quoted, except Wikipedia quote.

In Health care reform in the United States, we can't mention conservative or liberal views and criticisms because it is partisan?

You asked for references. I gave them.

You asked for references that mention "controversies". I gave them.

You asked for references that made mention, even quoting the quotes. I gave them. Try reading the refs, you will see them.

You asked for non-partisan references. I gave them to you.

I give you partisan sources, but guess what? Usually there are "controversies" when other people don't think your way. SHOCK.. Furr's quotes have riled up conservatives. But we can't mention that?

If you want "liberal" sources, how about [1] and [2]

How in the world do I satisfy your concerns when I have done everything you have asked? Bgwhite (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that these quotes are a source of embarrassment for Furr, that he's gone back on previously-held stances they describe and doesn't care to publicize them? If he still publicizes these views, attribution to him is not in question, and they serve to illustrate a well-documented part of his academic persona, I don't see the issue. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK, I've looked through some stuff. I have to say, I'm with Bgwhite here – I don't think the OR accusation has merit. This looks sound. Pesky (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that Wikipedians aren't supposed to demonstrate controversial opinions, they're supposed to cite any opinions deemed controversial by reliable secondary sources. Some of the quotes given were from Furr's own articles and were just added on the basis "I, the editor, deem this statement controversial." At the very least those sort of quotes should go. --Ismail (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources.
WP:NOTOR

I think it's likely to be in that kind of area. Sources don't absolutely have to use the word "controversial" if it's obvious that that was what they intended, taken in context. Pesky (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that there is/was a quotefarm here. I personally think, and I think WP consensus (esp. in BLPs) agrees with me, that for a quote and by extension a position to be included in the article it has to be noted by a third-party source, preferably a reliable one. To the larger topic: Inside Higher Ed is reliable enough, in my opinion, but FrontPage certainly is neither reliable nor neutral, and neither is Accuracy in Media (the latter is about as non-neutral as one can get). The Pittsburgh material is another matter: it is a newspaper, sure, but it's a conservative one, and the questions are about as leading as they can get: "We've known for a long time that many campuses are dominated by left-liberals. Is it worse than people think?" Still, it establishes something of a controversy, I guess, and if you put it all together, you have the opinion that right-wing publications don't like Furr. Whether that rises to noteworthiness by our standards, I don't think so, but that is an assessment where I err on the side of caution (this being a BLP).

  Notability is a difficult question. I can't do the fancy footwork that DGG or User:Guillaume2303 can do, but I see little: he's got six articles (one an essay in an anthology) indexed in the MLA, two of which are on Stalin-matters, I guess. Ha, I may be more notable as a medievalist. Anyway, without more technical tools (such as h-index or whatever it's called) I'm inclined to say he does not pass WP:PROF, and his GNG status is also tenuous. Sorry Bg, but I don't fully agree with your assessment. Being marked by a...person like David Horowitz does not yet notability make, IMO. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we might be speaking past each other, BGWhite. Please read what Drmies and Ismail mention. My problem is not, per se, with the sources provided. It is how these sources are represented and attributed, and further, as to the respect and decorum we must give any BLP, not matter how we might personally despise the subject or his/her ideas. I have mad eno value judgement of the individual sources at all, just that they are echoes of the same thing. That does speak to the notability of Frontline, but this is not an article about Frontline, it is about Grover Furr: the claim that he is widely viewed as controversial is not supported by sources. In any case, what is indeed controversial is the Frontline list itself. Lets not be reproducers of partisan political propaganda - even if it is taken up by otherwise reliable sources.

And I disagree with Pesky in this type of interpretation of policy, but recognize there is no generalized consensus and so it is us to develop it for this article. I think that "controversial" is in firmly WP:WTA territory, that is, even if sources use the term, we should watch for its use without attribution in a BLP. And this is not a new argument for me, as you can read above. The claim in the section that I have reverted and BGWhite inserted is that Grover Furr is widely considered controversial. Yet, as per my challenge of GNG applicability, what we have is a few secondary sources all related to reporting of a single primary source: David Horowitz's Frontline. That hardly can be construed as a "widespread" perspective. As my editing shows, I have no problem with presenting this information, but only giving it due weight: all the sources ultimately are repeating the claims of Frontline directly, and are in fact echoes of it. There is not a single independent source that is critical of Furr's views in ways that are independent of the Frontline listing. However, if we search for Grover Furr in one of the sites provided by BGWhite, Inside Higher Ed, we see that there are plenty of mentions of him in other capacities unrelated to the Frontline listing, and which make no mention of he being particularly controversial. This is serious WP:UNDUE stuff. Since I am absolutely ignorant of the subject, and only came upon this by chance, I am studying the subject further. It does seem to me that there should

As to the quotefarm, I think it is absolutely unreasonable to include it. It is not just a violation of the letter of the guidelines, but it doesn't even meet WP:IAR: it adds nothing to encyclopedic value of the knowledge of the subject. If secondary sources directly quote the specific quotes, then we can use the primary source as a footnote, but its use stand-alone as Drmies points out is quotefarming - and in the context of a BLP it much more iffy.

A point is raised above that maybe Furr is not bothered by the quotes. That is immaterial. As long established in BLPs the only objections a subject can make are those of a legal nature (ie legal slander) or as part of regular participation in the consensus process with a declared COI. In other words, if Furr joined this discussion he would have to convince us why we should ignore our own rules to include a quotefarm. I have been involved in quite a few BLP fights - even of obscure subjects not related to politics, like porn stars - and I will say that in general even sourced stuff that is unrelated to notability is not put in unless widely reported.

I want to be more forceful, because I do not see it here, in addressing WP:UNDUE issues of the quotefarm. Generally, controversies are not one sided, yet we come up with a one-sided account of Grover Furr. That is a problem. While I am not convinced fully that this subject is notable (because there seems to be a inherited notability from Frontline, which is a no-no), if it remains, then we need to explore it fully. As I mentioned above, as time permits I will try to do this, but I am just a random editor whose long-time contributions to the wiki are both sporadic and a result of my interest as a reader.

Lastly, I am glad most of you are realizing this is a BLP. I think from reading the previous discussion, this point seemed to be missing on either side. As Jimbo often says BLPs should be a special kind of article, because they deal with actual people with actual living breathing realities, and it is not of any encyclopedic value for us to not be kind in our treatment of these people and their relatives and friends, even if the reasons for their notability are universally reproachable. It is unkind to describe a living person as "controversial" in naked way - even if this seems like a Duck Test description to some of us. --Cerejota (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I give up. This is the first time I've run into partisan politics. Can't use a right-leaning source even though alot of the material has no relevance to politics. Hey, Stalin didn't kill millions and wanted democracy is only ok by liberals and not by conservatives? How can politics be drawn into that? I listed a ref from the Marxism Leninism Today that contained the quotes and those weren't mentioned by you or drmies. Can I or can't I use my local papers, because one is right and the other is left leaning? 4 of the 5 quotes were directly mentioned in the refs I listed, INCLUDING THE MARXIST REFS, but it is deemed a link farm because right-leaning quotes can't be trusted on non political issues, then the liberal refs mentioning the quotes are ignored. I'm extremely, extremely disgusted that using right-leaning material is now an no-no on Wikipedia to non-political quotes to some editors and I usually vote democrat. Bgwhite (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see those two (unnamed) links in the walls of text above--but [3] is simply a copy of the Frontpage article on a non-notable and unreliable website, and [4] this is...well, a page on a website. Marxism-Leninism Today has no editorial board or policy that I can discern, and even their mission statement is missing.

But to the politics. I'm not sure what you think or what you accuse me of. That I think the sources are unreliable, not notable, and that the guy may not pass notability standards, does that make me right-wing or left-wing? Right-wing, maybe, because I'm trimming, even removing an article on a liberal; left-wing, possibly, because I'm sweeping a true controversy under the rug to protect a cryptomarxist? Come on now--this doesn't make a lot of sense, and I take serious offense at the suggestion that I somehow disqualify right-wing sources. (FWIW, if those two links were left-wing sources, well, I reject them too--and not for political reasons.) "Partisan politics". Come on Bg. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lets focus on the content, not the editors. I have been looking for reliable sources talking about a controversy in fact, I realized we do have another BLP Ward Churchill that can be used in terms of prescedent, Ward Churchill is truly controversial, with major media coverage etc. Grover Furr is controversial, seemingly, only to the David Horowitz echo chamber and perhaps some of the squabbling sect left - hardly a notable controversy worthy of a BLP, but I am not sure it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Hardly notable either way. Then why does this meet GNG? I am still not convinced. However, there might be some WP:AUTHOR and perhaps WP:PROF notability. In Russian wikipedia they even have a picture of the guy, so he seems to have a fan base of sorts there. --Cerejota (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not sure he passes PROF. Perhaps you can ask DGG what he thinks. He's only published articles, so he's not likely to have generated reviews of that work. Another minor scholar at a minor school--an all-too familiar story. Dr. Furr, if you're listening in, all this is to be read in the context of Wikipedia's guidelines. Your contributions to for instance the Chaucer list are well-known and duly noted, but they don't help Wikipedia notability. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Been through enough AfDs to know to get consensus on stuff first so that is why I do not assert, but explore, notability. However he has published books according to the info in the article. Five no less! I have no knowledge of russian, in spite of being polyglot, but I suspect that any notability would be heavily skewed towards Russian, which does activate all my spidey senses on systemic bias... so I am not comfortable declaring the question over. However GNG is not met.--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear: I was referring to academic books indexed by reliable databases. Those books in Russian, I don't know what to make of them or their publishers. What is "Penguin, Moscow"? Drmies (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's almost certainly Penguin Books. They're all over the world. Pesky (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I doubt that very much. Nothing on his own page gives me reason to believe that, and searching for the titles (thusly, for example produces nothing useful--no ISBNs, for instance. That Penguin would publish books in Russian available almost exclusively to a Russian audience sounds strange. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How very strange! Amazon can only find this on a basic search on his name. That's an ASIN number - others may have weird numbers, too. Pesky (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"[5] this is...well, a page on a website. Marxism-Leninism Today has no editorial board or policy that I can discern". It was written by Dr. Roger Keeran of Empire State University in New York City. He is an admire of the old Soviet Union. He is a member of the communist party USA, so he must be a right-winger and not reliable. Well, atleast that is what I could find after a two minute google search. Furr's Russian name is "Ферр, Гровер". He is popular in Russia by certain groups. I don't speak or understand Russian, but have fun on the 26,000 Google hits on his Russian name. Hope you speak Ukrainian... He is reviled by Ukrainians and Russian Jews. Sad, the GNG is being ignored because Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Inside Higher Ed are right wing, a Professors review of a book is ignored because it is left-wing and nobody wants to search Russian. Ironic, an obviously notable Professor with 40-years of experience and five books published in atleast 3 languages. (remember, he is a history not Physics prof), won't have an article because he is controversial to right and extreme left wings of the political spectrum. I'm now leaving this article off my watchlist, so Cerejota, you can continue your digs that I'm an incompetent editor who only does AWB edits. Thank you for making assumptions about me and not actually apologizing. But I just looked for your name in my talkpages... you told me I was an idiot (you apologized for that) and thought Off2riorob telling me to "Fuck off" was ok and ignoring rules was ok because it was Off2riorob. May we never meet again. Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

BGWhite, I did address what you said if you read above. I do not know what else to say :/

Focusing on the content issue raise, lets be clear that the issue is not if a source is right-wing or left-wing, but if it is a partisan source. Partisan sources can be entirely reliable for one purpose (for example, as primary sources on themselves) but their reliability raises all kinds of verification issues. Inside Higher Ed is a minor competitor to other journals on academia, but as I mentioned, a search in it for this subject revealed much more information than that about a "controversy" on the subject, yet this information is not included - what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is indeed a well-known conservative newspaper, and is described as such in its wikipedia article - this means it might be very reliable for non-partisan issues like sports scores or traffic accidents, it is less so when examining partisan issues. More specifically, the article in question WP:RS indeed tells us that even otherwise reliable sources can make unreliable sources. Lastly, to repeat, there is a difference between saying "David Horowitz, a conservative commentator, sees Grover Furr as controversial" and saying "Grover Furr is widely considered controversial" in a BLP. Lets have some decorum.--Cerejota (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and MLTODAY is a fringe publication of a fringe dissident group of a fringe CPUSA. Hardly notable except perhaps about itself.--Cerejota (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversy, what controversy?

I have deleted the "Controversy" section. There is no content in the article to justify such a section. One commentator's opinion does not make a controversy - and to make a controversy sction out of it is a case of undue weight. Meowy 21:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am leaving the edit pending further discussion, but I would have been more comfortable with a sourced discussion of his bibliographical and academic work, including detractors and critics, than a section called controversy. That said, I see no problem with how that line was put forth and sourced - it clearly attribute the views and they are indeed about the subject. So I am not sure a full removal was called for.--Cerejota (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But it was just the opinion of one person, and not much detail went with it. Maybe that section had more content in the past, but it had next to nothing in it when I deleted it - so surely it was undue weight to make a whole section named "Controversy" out of one person's opinion. Moving itscontent to another section would have been possible, but there is not much in the whole article actually. It is as if he is only notable because one person said he was controversial! Meowy 19:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Meowy, I think you should stick it back in, someplace or other. Perhaps remove the headings altogether to make one big (well...) section. The article is about to be trimmed, since a list of articles he published is not of encyclopedic value. I'm leaving the books, for now, but I think they should go too. Cerejota, are you still pondering AfD? I have no objection to it, but it's more fair to do so if at least some of the sources (like, that one) are stuck back in. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Meowy, David Horowitz's echo chamber is not "one person" - it is a notable, well known, partisan network with significant influence in the discourses in mainstream US conservatism regarding academia and media. So that it has commented - even negatively - on Grover Furr is certainly notable in his BLP. I do understand the WP:UNDUE concerns, but this are probably better fixed by enriching the information, rather than removal.

Drmies, Articles I agree are not very much encyclopedic info, but the books are critical BLP stuff - they are not self-published vanity tree killers but actual edited commercial books, so if there is an article on this subject, a bibliography is critical encyclopedic info. I am not much of deletionist, as you can tell from my user page, so I prefer to work on this - in particular because the books are nearly all in russia publishers and in russia - we need someone with knowledge on that to avoid systemic bias. I think it would be disservice to the encyclopedia to have BLPs deleted simply because we as editors are not cognizant of something. So I am not comfortable with AfD at this point - I want to exhaust WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF a little bit more - even if we can agree GNG is pretty much out the door. There is a reason this guy fell on Horowitz's radar, I think that is worth exploring.--Cerejota (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this useful?

This book no ... this one! seems to cite Furr a few times. Helpfully, Amazon have included a "search inside this book" button - tap in "Furr" and you'll find the citations in footnotes on clickable-link pages :D Pesky (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding: sometimes asking ourselves "OK, who's cited Mr.X" can open up new avenues of research. Pesky (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a book written by Furr, you know. --Ismail (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Look, it was in the wee small hours of the morning, lol! Though my body was awake, the same doesn't necessarily apply to the brain, lol! I've replaced the link with one to the book I actually meant! Pesky (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed BLP violations

Lest there be any confusion over what I removed as Biography of living persons policy violations, here is why;

• "a far-left American professor" - a matter of opinion description and labelling of the article subject. Who has described him as "far left"? Unless it's a reliable authority, or himself, and can be cited, it is not up to Wikipedia to determine this.
• "Furr is know for being ..." - Unsourced and weaselly. Who knows him as this?
• "This was not the first time this has occurred..." - Entirely unsourced. What other times?
• "Despite numerous protests... " - What protests? By who? Unsourced. Without this information it is impossible to tell if these protests are being given due weight or not. It is also not neutral, as it is posed as an accusation over what the University should be doing.
• "In the past he has been suspected.." - Yet more critical unsourced claims in violation of BLP policy. Suspected by who? What makes the suspicions valid and/or notable? Cites?
• "To this date his name has not been listed.." - Wikipedia does not discuss what hasn't happened, particular if there's no source doing it either. An infinite number of things haven't happened. Why is Wikipedia mentioning this one?

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This Article Should Mention Furr's Views on Stalin

Grover Furr is primarily notable for his views on Stalin and related history. This should be acknowledged in the article. Why else have an article on him? The fact that his views differ from what is generally believed should also be acknowledged. In particular, his views contradict several other wikipedia articles. A simple statement of fact such as "Furr argues that Stalin is misrepresented by mainstream historians." (with references to Furr's publications) should be acceptable. 209.6.94.47 (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)