Talk:The Professors

NPOV dispute

I came here looking for the discussion behind the NPOV template and find none. Is this designation directed at the article or the contents of the book in question? If we assume the latter then the NPOV is wrongly applied. If no response occurs, I propose removing the warning. The article seems to be fairly balanced in it's representation of the book. Alcmaeonid 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag. Alcmaeonid 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the NPOV tag. This article, like the book, reads like a chapter out of the Salem Witch Trials or a hearing by former Sen. Joe McCarthy. Numerous people are named and broadly smeared and in each case, those who have come to their defense are not quoted. I intend to remove the names of all individuals who are smeared. If someone wants to read the book, they can learn the names. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to smear people.Skywriter (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

"And as we all know, this is totally true... snicker snicker..." i removed this from the intro... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.53.147 (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Responses from professors

I'm not sure how many to include. I think all 100 would be clearly too long, though of course many will not comment. I think the 7 listed so far are a decent sampling - 3 Becker or linked to by him, 4 from a Socialist Worker article. A representative set of issues or reactions is raised; pride to be included, treat it as a joke versus treat it seriously, Horowitz' motives political or financial, relation to academic freedom, context of the war on terrorism, the means of distortion. Kalkin 18:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the response section should be longer than the section describing the actual subject of the book. Perhaps a few should be taken off. But I think a better solution would be to expand the first section. Someone more knowledgeable than myself will have to complete that task.--GenkiDama 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the original article intended to list all of the academics targeted by this nutjob in this book, but the article lists a fair number now. I consider it wildly irresponsible to publish what appears as a black list in Wikipedia, since this forum serves as a springboard to further the attacks. Every professor who has not chosen to respond to the charges in this forum should not be listed. --Nickmalik 12:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia is some sort of liberal activism site, there needs to be NPOV. The criticisms by Mr. Horowitz (with ad hominem attacks by the above poster like "nutjob") need to be specifically stated of these professors and THEN a response given by said professors. Instead, there is a general criticism and specific rebuttals by certain professors in question. Are these the worst or the least worst that Horowitz has mentioned, in his opinion? Obviously this was done in order to try to paint Mr. Horowitz in a certain light, which is grossly not NPOV. You may disagree vehemently, but let's be fair. You want fairness in academia, so same goes for here.--Doctorcherokee 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if every criticism of Horowitz was cited as you point out, they are not all suitable for inclusion in an article of this size. NPOV goes beyond simply citing things correctly. To have one paragraph describing the book's contents but 8 paragraphs of criticism violates NPOV's policy no matter how many cites are included. I've removed all the individual responses and trimmed the "response" section to be in balance with the book summary. Lawyer2b 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Professorshorowitz.jpg

Image:Professorshorowitz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters?

Why is Media Matters used as an objective source in this article? Media Matters is one of the most biased organizations around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.82.12 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Laksin

Who is this guy? Why is he listed in the links at the bottom of the page as responding to the professors responses to their being listed in Horowitz's book and yet he isn't mentioned anywhere in the wiki article itself. Is he the alter ego of Horowitz or something? Why is it essential to list his defense of Horowitz on the wikipedia page?

And Media Matters is no more "biased" than any other fact checking organization

Arguman (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Berube response

I have removed the extended quote from Berube... it is not even a response to Horowitz's book, but an attack on Horowitz's handling of his written response to the book, and so only tangentially relevant to this article, and disproportionately large. This section could probably be filled out more with actual responses, but for now I've trimmed down the part around Berube. 134.10.113.105 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the above revert by anonymous user 134.10.113.105. This entire article names numerous professors by name and then smears all of them. Berube provided detailed responses and deserves to be heard. This article smears numerous academics and does not allow, at this point, detailed rebuttals from those who are smeared.Skywriter (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Voodoo doll policy vs. establishing notability

I have removed the list of professors' names. Horowitz is quoted high up in this article as writing: "And far from being harmless, they spew violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-Semitism, and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians."

Nowhere is it established that this book is notable. Why does this article exist? Wikipedia is not a repository for indiscriminate information WP:INDISCRIMINATE nor is it a repository for repeating what is in books without secondary analysis by reliable sources.WP:RS.

If anyone disagrees, and chooses to revert, please place a totally disputed tag at the top of the article and let's immediately seek more opinions. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed recently that the previous editor, Skywriter, has been deleting references to this book from various articles citing violations of BLP. Not trying to pick a fight here but how is reporting on the contents of a book defamatory and libelous? Just curious… Hammersbach (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please address Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and WP:SOAP with regard to this article. Many of the biographies of living persons WP:BLP to which this article linked were created with the specific purpose of attacking the individual, and solely with Horowitz's opinion. There was little or no other biographical material present. WP:BLP applies in every case. In one instance, the college professor replied to the Horowitz stunt; I left both the attack and reply intact.

Where are the multiple reliable sources WP:RS establishing that the opinions of this author are well-placed and well-sourced and that this book deserves its own article? Where are the reliable sources establishing that this book is notable? WP:N [1] I have seen none. Have you?

You can argue that Wikipedia practices voodoo doll policy where anyone can get thinly supported opinions published and use the publication to needle personal enemies. If you can establish that such a WP policy exists, I'd like to know about it. In the absence of voodoo doll policy, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and [[WP:SOAP] apply here. Skywriter (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you honestly believe what you have written above is true then you should have little trouble in getting this article deleted. A good place to start the process can be found at WP:AFD. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to delete it? Are you reading this thread? The topic is whether the author (or his employees) can continue to use Wikipedia for free advertising and systematically create biographies of living people with the sole purpose of stating they are named as "dangerous" in his book. Your answer is non-responsive. The immediate question is this: where are the secondary source WP:RS reviews that establish this book as notable? The process is to raise that question on the talk page and not to immediately call out the Calvary, though that may not be your style.Skywriter (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest avoiding the unfound conspiracy theories about whether the author or his/her employees are manipulating an article, and instead reaching consensus about the edits in question? —DMCer™ 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that DMCer continues to skirt the central question that would resolve this dispute. The immediate question is this: where are the secondary source WP:RS reviews that establish this book as notable? Skywriter (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I find the above comments by the previous editor, Skywriter, to be a bit troubling, at least as it pertains to this thread. When I left my first comment here the section was titled “Libel and defamation”. Based on the initial comment that Skywriter had left here I asked a question concerning how was “reporting on the contents of a book defamatory and libelous?” After all, there is, I believe, a significant difference between saying that someone is one of the most dangerous professors and stating in an article that that is what Horowitz writes in his book. Rather than addressing this question, Skywriter instead chose to rename this section, reword the comment that they had left here seven months prior deleting their references to libel and defamation, claim that the “topic is whether the author (or his employees) can continue to use Wikipedia for free advertising and systematically create biographies of living people with the sole purpose of stating they are named as "dangerous" in his book”, and rebuke me for leaving what they felt was a non-responsive answer. (Well, every editor has their own style)

I really had no intention whatsoever of getting involved in this debate but since I have been called out for being non-responsive, let me respond to the question of reliable sources. I was able to find, quite easily actually, the following reliable sources that have reviewed this book: 1) the Los Angeles Times [[2]], 2) the New York Times [[3]], 3) the Boston Globe [[4]], 4) USA Today [[5]], and 5) the Washington Times [[6]]. I also found this source, [[7]], which is Dr. Michael Bérubé’s rebuttal in the New York Times. In other words the New York Times found the subject notable and newsworthy enough that, in addition to having their own staff review the work, they allowed one of the professors cited in the book to make a public reply. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hammersbach, I am reviewing the links you provided. Thank you for taking the time and for adding useful content to the discussion.

You link to the same LATimes article twice and the two you offer from the NYT are the same (Bérubé mentions this book peripherally in one sentence[8]. Did you intend to cite a different piece in the NYT?

Your claim of that NYT article being "Dr. Michael Bérubé’s rebuttal in the New York Times " is in error.

Bérubé does however reply pointedly to the attack on himself and others in the USA Today article you cite. USA Today conveys that rather than being notable, this book, the subject of this Wikipedia article, is both riddled with error and its author both loose with facts and dishonest.

...Trouble is, his critics, including a recently created coalition of student, faculty and civil liberties groups, say he doesn't know what he's talking about. In May, the coalition called Free Exchange on Campus released a report aimed at discrediting claims made in Horowitz's new book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (Regnery).

The book profiles faculty who Horowitz says represent the kind of disorder going on in college classrooms today. But professor by professor, the report cites errors, fabrications and misleading statements, and concludes that Horowitz's research is "manipulated to fit his arguments."

Two examples at Penn State:

• Sociology senior lecturer Sam Richards reinforces class lessons "with 'out-of-class' assignments that include the viewing of left-wing propaganda films, such as The Oil Factor, from which students learn that the 'war in Afghanistan has turned into a bloody quagmire,' ... and Occupation 101, about the horrors of Israel's 'occupation' of Palestinian terrorists,' " Horowitz writes. In the report, Richards responds: Horowitz "disingenuously fails to note that students also receive credit for attending 'conserva- tive' events, including a talk by none other than David Horowitz!"

• Literature professor Michael Berube acknowledges "his classes often have little to do with literature," and he believes "religious people were to be regarded as simply irrational," Horowitz says. In addition to noting that Horowitz "knows nothing about my classroom demeanor or my record as a faculty member," Berube says: "If he were a college student and tried to get away with this garbage, he would indeed be flunked — not for his conservatism, but for his mendacity." ...

[9]

That article also observes that Horowitz is frequently accused of being "Loose with facts."

"In one example, Horowitz claimed a Penn State biology professor had shown the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11 before the 2004 presidential elections. When Pennsylvania House committee co-chair Lawrence Curry pressed him during hearings at Temple University in Philadelphia in January, Horowitz acknowledged that his staff could not confirm it had happened, and that he no longer uses that example. " ...

...Horowitz similarly has been accused of making up a story about a University of Northern Colorado student who was asked to write an essay on her criminology exam explaining "why President Bush is a war criminal." When the student wrote instead about why Saddam Hussein is a war criminal, Horowitz says, she got a failing grade. Horowitz insists the incident happened: "I located the student and the exam," he says, but "it's a complicated story. ... The student was terrified."

Even so, Horowitz acknowledges his small staff can't confirm every incident it receives, and his fact-checkers can be "very loose with the truth."

[10]

This Wikipedia article links to the report (on this book, the subject of this Wikipedia article) by Free Exchange on Campus but does explore its content thus making this article all the more unWP:balanced.

The USA Today article also makes clear that a "coalition of student, faculty and civil liberties groups, say he doesn't know what he's talking about. In May, the coalition called Free Exchange on Campus released a report aimed at discrediting claims made in Horowitz's new book, The Professors..."

In the interest of fairness and WP:Balance this article ought to reflect the criticisms of this book and its author on an equal basis with any claims the book makes.

Thank you for the link to the paid archive of the Boston Globe. Horowitz actually reprints the full text of the Boston Globe article on his website[11] without mentioning where it originated.

He does the same with the article you cite and source to the paid archive at Washington Times-- a softball Q and A with Horowitz that gives him free and uncritical publicity but does nothing to establish this book's notability or lack thereof.

[12]

I guess the question for Wikipedia is can we link to Horowitz's version of those articles without violating the copyright of two newspapers who store those articles in paid archives.

As to changing the headline on this thread, I wrote it and edited it. The current iteration gets to the point quicker in terms everyone understands. I do appreciate your providing sources.

You are wrong about this--After all, there is, I believe, a significant difference between saying that someone is one of the most dangerous professors and stating in an article that that is what Horowitz writes in his book.

Repeating, uncritically, the comments of someone who is known to lie or to play loose with facts is not encyclopedic, and I think you know that.

I have no problem including the points and counterpoints by Horowitz and the people he attacks ONLY IF they have responded to him. It is wrong to include attacks on anyone without giving them a chance to respond. If they have not responded in secondary sources, then we can do no original research and must accept that they have not responded publicly. Bérubé did respond, saying Horowitz knows nothing about his classes and that he'd flunk him, not for his views, but for lying. That can certainly go in this article.

Just as the articles on Stephen Glass (and others) discuss dishonesty in the form of plagiarism, there is no reason why this one can not explore, in an even-handed manner, the replies of those who have replied to Horowitz's personal attacks. But for Wikipedia to copy and paste a list from a book-- no, that's not encyclopedic at all, and I think everyone reading this knows this. Skywriter (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia not an advertising service

Anonymous user 76.20.61.59 ignored this talk page and decided to revert the listing of all these names, which have no point in being listed. Here's news: this is not an advertising service for any author. Horowitz if you want to sell your book, get out and sell it. Don't use Wikipedia to sell it for you.Skywriter (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Balance

I tagged the article, as it (so far) lists negative opinions from critics. WP:NPOV states that "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." If Media Matters is listed here, one could make the argument that sticking a NewsBusters review in the article of a book from the other side of the ideological spectrum would be acceptable. —DMCer™ 14:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly is not known for being ideological and PW panned this book. Some books do get panned, you know. Maybe there is little balance in the reviews because there is little balance or moderation in the book itself. Many consider the author a bomb-thrower who makes generalizations so broad and so outrageous, it becomes clear he does it to evoke reaction, to generate heat and not light. So there's no big surprise when he gets panned. Subtlety is not in his toolbox. No surprise that he gets as good as he gives. Skywriter (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DMCer, please add whatever you think adds balance if you can establish that such reviews exist. You've been monitoring this article for quite a while and perhaps know where to find the favorable reviews you seek.Skywriter (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I say anything about Publisher's Weekly? No, but judging from your POV, I hope you're able to remain neutral in your edits. If you believe the 48 hours I have been monitoring this article constitutes "quite a while," then I'm sorry to disappoint you. It seems you've monitored this for much longer than I have.—DMCer™ 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The central question is this-- where are positive reviews of this book in WP:RS that would add the balance that justify the tags you placed?Skywriter (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed the central question, isn't it. Because they're not in the article does not mean they don't exist. Articles must be balanced, that does not mean giving undue weight, but I trust you'll agree that listing, among other reviews, critical things Media Matters says about every right-of-center book, while not including other reviews is not very neutral. By the same token, the flip side would be adding what the National Review, etc. thinks about these things. —DMCer™ 23:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And what prevents your or anyone from linking to any reviews in National Review or anywhere else?Skywriter (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert activity by Sockpuppet

Sockpuppet appears to be at work on this article. Does anyone recall where to report this for checking the IP address with named users? Thanks. Skywriter (talk)

You can request the attention of Checkusers here. However, looking at the title of this section, don't simply revert IP edits that you disagree with. If they are confirmed socks of registered users that's one thing; but removal of non-vandalism by IP users is entirely different. The edit argument in question should be discussed here on the talk page.—DMCer™ 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have stated valid reasons for deleting a list of academics for the sole purpose of attacking them. I see no secondary sources affirming that any of these academics are "dangerous". Where are the reliable sources affirming the validity of these condemnations of more than 100 academics? This information centers on biographies of living persons. More than the negative viewpoint of one individual is needed to include it in this or any encyclopedia. Moreover, there is no factual data included in this article that warrants applying derogatory information to any of these people. If you believe that information exists, please make the case.Skywriter (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you characterize all IP editors as sockpuppets? On what grounds do you make this statement? Who do you think I am a sockpuppet of? I'm asking you to remove your unfounded accusations pronto.

Your opinion of the author and whether he has grounds to write the book the way he has is entirely irrelevant here. Stop removing sections of this article based on your own personal views of the book. For further reference see the NPOV section on bias. Oh yes and please check your belligerent attitude at the door. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not my personal view, WP policy on living persons WP:BLP Skywriter (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you being selective in answering questions? All right lets take them one at a time then. On what grounds are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? That's a serious charge. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not so serious. You won't be harmed over it. Some people like to throw accusations around. Skywriter, why not handle this content dispute in a more above-board manner? You disagree with an edit. Build consensus, right? Just stay focused on content, not contributors. If the edit is bad, then it's bad on its own terms, and not because of who makes it. Can you restrict your comments to that domain? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

For someone who has made only a few edits, User at IP 76.231.247.6 seems to know an awful lot about how Wikiepdia operates, things it takes those of us who have been editing with registered names years to learn. User at IP 76.231.247.6 blew up at being reverted for not building consensus on this talk page and when asked, above board, to provide reliable sources and also attacked me personally with warnings on my talk page. User at IP 76.231.247.6 has been asked repeatedly to focus on content and to provide the sources that say, yes, this is a good book and that the named academics are "dangerous" people. User at IP 76.231.247.6 hasn't addressed that. User at IP 76.231.247.6 has repeatedly been dealt with in an above board manner. And so, in case anyone hasn't seen the central above board question, here it is again: where are the reliable sources that say this is a notable book that makes notable points that the people--- User at IP 76.231.247.6 wants to use this article to attack-- are indeed dangerous people who should be called out as "dangerous" in an encyclopedia?

That question has been asked repeatedly and no one has answered it. And yes, these same individuals try to sneak that list back into this encyclopedia, attacking people they know nothing about, people who don't even have articles on Wikipedia and in some cases, people about whom articles have been created for the sole purpose of advertising this book. Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt's monograph On Bullshit applies here. If these people are dangerous, prove it and quit swimming in Bullshit. Skywriter (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Address the content, Unregistered User at IP 76.231.247.6. Skywriter (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, hi. You doin' okay? Nobody's attacking you here. I'm suggesting that commenting purely on content (where you're clearly in the right - I support you) and not on the contributor, makes it much, much, much easier for me to support you. If you can't do that, this'll be much harder, because I'll find my hands tied. This is not a huge deal, and we'll work it out; we won't put defamatory material in the encyclopedia, okay? Let's just keep a good focus on the work, not on the people. Is that reasonable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources recommend this book?

That questions has not been answered though it has been asked numerous times on this talk page.

What is the WP encyclopedic basis for calling out dozens of academics in an encyclopedia by identifying them as "dangerous" in the opinion of one individual?

Unless proponents of including the names of living individuals make the case by answering these questions and persuading other editors of the validity of their argument, WP:BLP strictly applies here. If you doubt it, other editors can weigh in.Skywriter (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hammersbach has taken the time to provide some links to articles in legacy media that discuss this book, and I have read each. None of them recommend this book. (One--from the Washington Times-- is a Q&A. The others point out errors and dishonesty in this volume. This discussion takes place in the thread above headlined Voodoo doll policy vs. establishing notability.

If anyone has any other links that discuss this book in {{WP:RS]] I'm sure we'd all like to see them.Skywriter (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Author blames book's errors on researchers

Hammersbach mentioned this article. I found the link. A conservative New York newspaper found errors in the book by Horowitz.

A professor of American history, Eric Foner, whom Mr. Horowitz describes as an "apologist for American Communism," said in an e-mail, "Mr. Horowitz's 'chapter' on me is full of errors, beginning with the long quote with which he opens, which was written by someone else, not me. This is a fair example of the reliability of his work. But to get into a debate about Horowitz is a waste of time, and accords his attacks a legitimacy they do not deserve."

Mr. Horowitz attributes to Mr. Foner a statement by the late author and journalist, Paul Foot, from a collection of responses to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the same feature, which ran in the October 4 issue of the London Review of Books.

On his blog, Horowitz admitted wrongly attributing material to historian Eric Foner and blamed the error on his researchers. He claimed the errors in his book are "inconsequential." However in the introduction, he wrote: "I have revised and edited all of the profiles contained in this text and rewritten many . . . I am ultimately responsible for their judgements and accuracy" - David Horowitz, in the introduction to The Professors

On his blog, he wrote: "The article is correct about the error. The question is how did it happen and how does it affect the validity of the profile of Foner in my book.

As I pointed out in the introduction to The Professors, the 101 profiles were the work of thirty researchers. In these circumstances, juxtaposing a quote – which is clearly what happened -- is not too difficult a possibility to imagine. The Foner quote and the Foot quote appeared in sequence on a page in the London Review of Books which was referenced in The Professors, and during the many revisions of the manuscript that's how the error was made." [13]

Does anyone object to this and the pieces linked to by Hammersbach be added to this Wikipedia article? Skywriter (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Further, there are detailed reports of errors in this book concerning other academics. It is difficult to understand how this article has been up as long as it has without detailed responses from the academics who are attacked especially when those responses have been online for as long as the book has existed.[14] While there is a link to Free Exchange on Campus, there is no attempt in this article to explicate the content. Rather this article treats Horowitz statements a though they are true. Anyone reading the link at Free Exchange on Campus [15] will quickly grasp that this author plays fast and loose with the truth. I continue to see no articles recommending this book as notable or as an example of reliable scholarship. If you know of any such secondary sources, please make them available so that we can all read them. Without information suggesting that this book is notable or a reliable source of scholarship, the attempts to revert to the copying and pasting of the list into this article has no basis in persuasion that it is the right thing to do. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)