Talk:The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Responding to Community Portal request for participation: Disagree with removal of NPOV tag and disagree with making a book the subject of an article. Correct way to handle this, from the perspective of good encyclopedic practice, is to add a note to the bio entries of any of the 100 who merit them independently of this work (The 101...) to the effect that the subject of the bio entry is included in the work. Do this no differently than if the subject had been named in a People Magazine Top 10 list, such as sexiest movie stars or top selling authors. The work itself, 101 Most Dangerous, deserves mention in an encyclopedia only as a work of its author(s), if and only if the author merits a bio entry. If the work itself is prominent, i.e. best selling or often cited, then it might merit an entire section of the author's bio entry. Otherwise, it should only appear in a chrono list of works. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2010 (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)

He is Horowitz's assistant at FP website.Skywriter (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2010 (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)

I think it's already been established that the book is notable. Thus, including the list, which used to be here, is not defamation in any way. You may want to take a look at WP:UNDUE. If the list weren't the very title of this book, but was merely a section, then including the 101 names would be giving undue weight here. Since this is notable, however that doesn't apply. I see no reason for excluding the list — the article is not complete without it. Much like 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America would not be complete without the "101" people. Again, just because some people may not agree with the content does not mean there's any reason to remove it. The same could be said about Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.—DMCer™ 20:01, 13 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 without explanation or proper sourcing

I am changing this headline so that unregistered user does not feel picked on. (I wrote the headline and believe it is therefore OK to change it.) Skywriter (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Yes, the content is central and that is my focus. I'm fine. The article history shows responses by some academics whom Horowitz attacked; their responses have been repeatedly deleted. That's why the reverts by unregistered users are so toxic. Here's a historical example of what has been removed. [13]

The The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a series of articles linking Princeton University Philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt's very serious monograph On Bullshit (Winner of the 2005 Bestseller Awards, Philosophy Category, The Book Standard ((now Kirkus Reviews))[14] to Horowitz. Frankfurt's is a thoughtful treatise that one can get a sense of here[15] and here[16].

While the Chronicle of Higher Ed series on Horowitz is behind a paywall, Graham Larkin's treatise is not. While at Stanford, Larkin tied David Horowitz's "War on Rational Discourse" to Frankfurt's On Bullshit in the online publication Inside Higher Ed[17]

Larkin is now the curator and head of the department of European and American Art at the National Gallery of Canada. The article at Insider Higher Ed is different from those linking Horowitz to Frankfurt's On Bullshit at the Chronicle of Higher Ed. as the two publications are competing entities. Insider Higher Ed is published by the former editors of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Skywriter (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you linked 3 separate times to On Bullshit. We can follow one link as easily as three. I'm not sure what you're talking about, to be quite honest. Apparently there are dots I'm supposed to connect.

However... IP editor, it appears tat Skywriter is making a case that these academics' responses have a place in the article. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From my pov the article can only benefit by the inclusion of responses from all sides. That would allow the reader to form his own opinions about the book. What I'm not OK with is the censoring of material based upon a single editor's biased view of both the author and the book.

This is not a bio, it is an article about a book. The article does not characterize the list members as dangerous, but indicates that the author does so, a critical distinction. The readers can make up their own minds whether the author is right-on or off-base. But you have to afford them that chance. From what I understand it is not the place of a wikipedia editor to decide for them and withhold the critical subjects of the book. That's insulting to the discernment of the reader.

According to several reviews, many list members consider it a badge of honor to be included on Horowitz's list.

The bad behavior of Skywriter is another matter altogether and needs to be addressed in some suitable place although I don't know what that is yet. In my opinion Wikipedia needs to come down hard on this kind of stuff because it scares potential editors off and is ultimately detrimental to the project's ends. If you read the guidelines you know that civility is acknowledged as one of the five pillars, the foundation on which the encyclopedia rests. It now only remains to be enforced. Regards, 76.231.247.6 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad behavior? Some things never change. Unregistered User from IP 76.231.247.6 is still attacking a fellow editor on a talk page.Skywriter (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing the civility policy is an interesting challenge. Try being an admin for a while and see what it's like. This isn't really the place to discuss that, though. You're welcome to post to my talk page if you want to know more.

As for the content question, you begin by saying the article can only benefit by the inclusion of responses from all sides. Can you unpack that a little bit? I see that you have added the actual list of professors to the page, and that Skywriter has removed that. It seems to me that we can include any opinions about the book that themselves have been published in reliable sources. What other sides are you wanting to see presented?

Skywriter, I would also appreciate a clarification of your position. Do you want to see the list AND professors' responses, or just the latter, or neither? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is that the article be balanced. Right now it is tagged as one sided, an assessment I agree with. Several supporting references have been listed above. Some of those can be edited in and hopefully the unbalanced and missing info tags can be removed. If we decide to allow specific responses from the list members we then need to also add in the original argument that they are rebutting. Again, maintaining balance is key.

As far as the list goes, looking over this page I believe there are at least four editors here who would like to see it restored. Is that considered a consensus? If so I'd like to move forward and restore it. I'll wait a while though to allow some space for any additional concerns. Am I going about this the right way GTBacchus? - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it needs to be restored. The single main objection on this page was citing WP:RS and WP:BLP. The latter doesn't apply in this case, and it has already been established that the book is notable. As I stated above: Including the list, which used to be here, is not defamation. If the list weren't the very title of this book, but was merely a section, then including the 101 names would be giving undue weight here. Since this is notable, however that doesn't apply. I see no reason for excluding the list — the article is not complete without it. Much like 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America would not be complete without the "101" people. Again, just because some people may not agree with the content does not mean there's any reason to remove it. The same could be said about Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot. Yes, calling someone a "big fat idiot" in their biography would be inappropriate, but since it's the title of a book by a noted author, it is of course notable for inclusion.—DMCer™ 20:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's a very big difference between saying that someone is "dangerous" and saying that they're listed in a book called The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Saying they're on the list isn't defamation, although what is claimed in the book might or might not be. I haven't read the book, so I don't know, but that's beside the point.

@IP editor: I think that, if you've made a case here on the talk page for an edit, and nobody has voiced any objections here, then you're welcome to make the edit. If Skywriter disagrees, then I hope he'll join us here discussing it. Since you've explained the edit, and several editors have agreed, the ball's pretty much in his court to explain why it's bad. The defamation/BLP argument doesn't seem to apply.

All of that said, it's completely reasonable that any documented replies by the 101 professors should also be included. Balance, as you say, is the key. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:25, 14 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)

As a reader I would like to know who is listed in the book. I don't care if reliable sources "recommend" the book or not. --Una Smith (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying that an academic is listed in the book is a far cry from saying that they're actually dangerous. It's like saying that To Kill a Mockingbird has been banned from various libraries, schools, etc. That doesn't mean their reason for banning it was right. It's just a fact. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:31, 14 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 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." [18]

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)

In the absence of any objections, I will add the above material and other critiques from reliable sources.Skywriter (talk) 23:30, 16 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.[19] 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 [20] 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)

I don't see that last point. Even if the book is deemed to be unreliable, it's reasonable to list the people it's about. If the book is notable enough to have an article about it, then its contents are notable enough to describe, using actual names. Including responses from those listed in the book is of course perfectly reasonable, and I tend to think the article wouldn't be very balanced without them.

That said, I don't understand why we should exclude the list. Do you see where I'm coming from, Skywriter? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote-- If the book is notable enough to have an article about it... -- has that been established? I have asked repeatedly for reliable sources supporting the concept that this is a notable book and no one has offered any. Skywriter (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion of content in this article. It is a mere listing of names, similar to Joe McCarthy going to the press with his list of reds. Only in this case, it is a list of dangerous professors. Why are they dangerous? Does Wikipedia allow people to bait others with no discussion. Where's the content? What's this book about? If Wikipedia is going to give free advertising to Horowitz, then present his arguments. There was no agreement from me to re-add that list and so I am putting a disputed tag on this really badly written one-sided article. Earlier, GTBacchus said repeatedly that my arguments were correct and has now apparently gone over to the other side. Skywriter (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, the only "side" is the encyclopedia's side. I have no loyalty to any specific editor, only to the encyclopedia. I said that you "seemed to be right", because that's how it seemed to me when I wrote that. Now I'm less sure. If you want to see this dispute as involving people on "sides", then I'm sorry for you. That's not Wikipedia.

I see no cogent argument for excluding the list, nor for excluding responses. Including the list in this article is not an assertion that these people are dangerous. It's an assertion about what's in the book.

Try to improve the article by adding, not by deleting. It makes more sense. If you're in doubt about the notability of the book, then nominate the article for deletion. If the book is non-notable, the article shouldn't be here at all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The sorrow you might feel is for misconstruing arguments as personal or as un-encyclopedic. I argue for fairness and I don't see fairness displayed over the history of this article, which has, for four years, been little more than free advertising for this author. Cheap shots, the article history is that the addition of [[WP:RS}} criticisms have been repeatedly deleted. This activity has resulted in this author using Wikipedia to broadcast his views unchallenged. As everyone reading this knows, articles in Wikipedia are duplicated throughout the Internet and, in so doing, those views go to the top of the search engines. In this case, giving a one-viewpoint megaphone to a subject that has multiple viewpoints is what is at issue. Unfortunately, those multiple viewpoints have been repeatedly deleted over time through a long series of reverts. Now that's reason for sorrow. Even more embarrassing for Wikipedia is that proponents of this book have created multiple articles in Wikipedia with the sole purpose of publicizing this book. Many of the academics named in this "list" have no notability and yet articles were created by fans of this book--or employees of the author-- with the specific purpose of mentioning that these academics' sole claim to fame is that they are mentioned in this book as "dangerous." IMO, that's what's sad. Skywriter (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What you describe sounds like a real problem. I'm glad you've filled me in on the context. All I saw coming in, you realize, was you arguing against the inclusion of the list, and calling people socks. If we need to make the article balanced, then let's do it.

Now, if an academic's only "claim to fame" is being listed in this book, then she's not notable enough to have an article about her, it would seem. As for the criticisms that have been repeatedly deleted, are there more to include that what the article currently has? Finally, (but first, priority-wise), have you, or has anyone, challenged the notability of the book itself? It doesn't appear that there's been an AfD. If the book is not notable, why is this article even here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) It does seem that by adding the complete list of Horowitz's targets that a can of worms has been opened. I agree that it is extremely biased to simply provide a list without any explanation of the specific charges against each professor. The article needs to include the rebuttals provided by both the targets and those speaking in their behalf. The addition of Foner's response is a nice, but small, start. As the article now stands, all 101 authors have been charged as "spew[ing] violent anti-Americanism, preach[ing] anti-Semitism, and cheer[ing] on the killing of American soldiers and civilians."

It seems particulary lame to have ONLY the book jacket quoted to describe Horowitz's position. Since when are jacket notes, designed primarily to get people to buy the book, considered to be reliable sources? No names should be mentioned unless the formal specifics are provided. Such broad charges as currently exist make it absolutely necessary to emphasize the critics of the book.

Should reviews by reliable secondary sources that support Horowitz be added to the article. Absolutely -- if they actually exist. However just as Horowitz should not be considered as a reliable, secondary source on wikipedia articles, neither should those right wing websites that support him. Are there scholarly, peer reviewed journals that support Horowitz? The whole charge that the reviews are weighed against him rests on the FACTUAL issue of whether this imbalance is or is not reflective of what has actually been published. I suggest removing the tag in a week or so if Horowitz's supporters don't come up with positive reviews by reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't charge the professors with anything. I don't see how any defamation is involved. If you want to balance the article, add more responses by the professors. That will make the article better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"The article doesn't charge the professors with anything." It doesn't need to in order to violate WP:BLP. Let's see what editors can do about finding better sources, then take it to WP:BLPN if editors still have concerns. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that the first priority is to decide whether there should even be an article about this book. Editors have voiced concerns on this talk page that it might not meet our notability requirements in the first place, rendering the BLP issue moot. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Why would anyone want to delete it?" a query from Skywriter, 03:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC). I think Skywriter has a point, why would anyone want to delete it, eh? Hammersbach (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Given WP:V and WP:BLP, the proper question is, "Why would anyone want to include it?" Per WP:V and WP:BLP, it can be removed until a satisfactory answer is found, if one exists. --Ronz (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody tell me Hammersbach didn't just quote me out of context. This could have been a decent article but the history of censorship and deletions has made it an empty shell. Ludicrous also is that four years after the article was created, all we know about this book beyond a list that comes and goes regularly-- is what's on the bookjacket. It seems that Horowitz has passionate supporters who are not passionate enough to do anything but stick a list of professor's names in here and call it an article. Until I added a few criticisms in the last week or so, there were few if any. And that is not because many have not been many criticisms added over the years. The opposite is true. What is also true is that all of the criticisms of this book have been deleted, vaporized into thin air. Don't take my word for it. Review the historical archive to see all that has been deleted. The best description for the result of all the deletions is that this is Wikipedia:Advertisements and WP:WPSPAM for which I sincerely hope Wikipedia is being paid a proper advertising fee. In case there are any unsuspecting readers out there who are not clear on what this article is, I'm going to go ahead and tag it as advertising/spam.Skywriter (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're not re-adding criticisms that have been deleted. Also, I fail to understand why you don't nominate this article for deletion, since you seem to assert that the topic is non-notable.

You said, this article "could have been" decent. Can't it still be that? What's stopping you from improving it now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertising/Spam

In case anyone doubts that this article is anything more than spam, I challenge you to click the links to the academics who are listed, particularly the more obscure names. Look at the history of those articles and you will notice that they were created solely to advertise this book. Somebody higher up on this talk page even complained after I recently went through all of those articles to remove the advertising link to this book. As useless as is the list that appears in this article, the linked articles also said nothing about the professors for whom articles were created (save a bare bones paragraph or two). The articles were created solely to embarrass the subject with the note that they were named as "dangerous" by David Horowitz enterprises. No details were given in any article of what led to that person being identified as "dangerous", just a link to buying the book. It must be sweet to have all that power over other people's lives and to make money targeting people on a "list" and using Wikipedia as the vehicle for free advertising to sell those books. I have long wondered if some struggling academic didn't get promoted or lost out on a job because he or she was identified as "dangerous" by this enterprising author. I guess it doesn't matter. You can use Wikipedia to call anybody anything and get away with it if you holler "censorship" when somebody queries why you are doing this.Skywriter (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why haven't you nominated this article for deletion? It seems that you're complaining about the article while declining to do anything proactive about it. What's up? Re-add the criticisms already. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis for the claim that I have declined "to do anything proactive about it."?? Here's news. I am the only person who has added content(Foner and other professors' responses in the last week and Michael Bérubé in the week before that). And, I have added quite a lot to this talk page outlining the history of reverts and why the result of the revert wars lands this article into the category of pure advertising.

The theme of all of my recent postings to this page has been to ask for sources that RECOMMEND THIS BOOK or ESTABLISH ITS NOTABILITY. Those pleas are incorporated under these headings.

8 Voodoo doll policy vs. establishing notability

9 Wikipedia not an advertising service

10 Balance

11 Revert activity without explanation or proper sourcing

12 What reliable sources recommend this book?

As it turns out, Hammersbach was the only person to respond though, interestingly, none of what he submitted recommends this book. I reviewed all of the links that Hammersbach submitted, used that material and added it to this article. I then asked Hammersbach to clarify incorrect links but Hammersbach has not replied. In case anyone missed it, the following consists of that exchange.

Hammersbach wrote "... 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 [[21]], 2) the New York Times [[22]], 3) the Boston Globe [[23]], 4) USA Today [[24]], and 5) the Washington Times [[25]]. I also found this source, [[26]], 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!" :Hammersbac 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[27]. Did you intend to cite a different piece in the NYT? from my comments dated Skywriter 20:43, 11 January 2010Skywriter (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, the reason I asked the question I did is that you're here on the talk page complaining, but I don't you nominating it for deletion. If you doubt the notability of the article, why is it not up for deletion? I don't understand why you would expend any energy on this talk page talking about what's wrong with the article when you could just fix it. I'm pretty sure you'll have a lot of people's support. What's going on? What's stopping the article from being better, or deleted. What's stopping that from happening now?

By the way, I'm not your opponent. At all. I just fail to understand what you're doing. Maybe I'm stupid. Explain it. Better, nominate the thing for deletion. Let's discuss it's notability, in an appropriate context. What is stopping you from doing that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should this book article be deemed "advertising" while all other book articles are not? - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing at cross purposes and in doing so, not responding to key elements in this thread. This article is advertising because the many replies by the named professors have been written into this article, repeatedly deleted, reinstated and then deleted in a never-ending cycle over the last four years. The major work by academics criticizing this book has been erased. Why have they not been given the opportunity to defend their good names? There is also a 50-page treatise by college professors responding to allegations in this book, and there is no trace of it in this Wikipedia article. Why not? I have asked you to review the history of this article for deletions and censorship. Have you reviewed it? If so, can you tell me why this is missing from the article? [28] It is called-- Facts Count-- An Analysis of David Horowitz’s The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America by Free Exchange on Campus. May 2006. That treatise addresses claims in this book in detail. If there were fairness and balance in this article, those views would be represented, not by a general mention that the website exists in the footnotes but by digging into the text. This Wikipedia article is free advertising for Horowitz Enterprises because the individual professors have responded to Horowitz's claims about them and most of their responses appear nowhere in this article because they have been deleted over time. And yet a list of their names and academic affiliations makes up the greater part of this article, most recently added and re-added and added again in a revert war. Media Matters produced a list, too, with many detailed responses by the professors and where is that? It is not that material from the gathering of responses by Media Matters has not been added. The point is that it has been deleted repeatedly and Media Matters attacked within the confines of the history of this article and talk page. What is the point of adding content when opposing viewpoints are deleted? Repeatedly. There is no question this article is free advertising. That there is any substantive replies at all in this article is because I added them in the last week. I added Foner's reply. What else has been done to add content? Reverts do not count as adding content, balanced or otherwise. Skywriter (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not add those links and see what happens? I would support their inclusion, perhaps others would as well. Gamaliel (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked a very simple question. Please don't regale me with episodes from the past. We're talking about the article as it stands right now. Your charge of advertising could be laid against many, many book articles in Wikipedia. How does one establish that one is advertisement and another is not? How is this one different? (Btw, please don't reinsert your arguments over and over again. A simple link to them will always suffice. Oh yes and I agree with Gamaliel. Add your links.) - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

At the beginning of this thread the challenge was made that “In case anyone doubts that this article is anything more than spam… click the links to the academics who are listed, particularly the more obscure names”. So I did, all of them. The purpose, of course, was to examine the statement that these articles were “created solely to advertise this book”, (or is it the later claim that the articles were “created solely to embarrass the subject...”?) Let’s take a look at the numbers, shall we? Now, since there are 101 professors listed that means there may be 101 articles on Wikipedia that were created solely with evil intent and malice of forethought. Of those 101 profs listed, 34 do not have articles about them, so that leaves us with 67 possibilities. Of those 67 articles, 38 were created prior to the book being published meaning that they weren’t written to satisfy Horowitz’s power-driven sweet tooth as alleged above. So we are left with 29 possibilities. Of those 29 articles, 22 did not mention Horowitz or the subject’s inclusion in his book when first written so that leaves us with seven. One of those seven mentions Horowitz not because of this book but because he is suing Horowitz over an unrelated work. And so we are left with the magic number of six, just six articles that note inclusion on the list at its inception and might have been created just to use “Wikipedia as the vehicle for free advertising to sell those books.” Now these six suspect articles are:

1) Marc Becker. This one actually looks like it was created as a direct result of the book with the initial edit citing not only his listing in the book but also the reason why; because he, and Historians Against the War, opposed the United States' war in Iraq. Of special note, it looks as though Marc Becker himself edited this article... by adding a reference for Horowitz’s book!

2) Elizabeth Brumfiel. This one also mentions her inclusion on the list and why, but does so by pointing out that it is based on “an untrue assertion that the (American Anthropological Association) had opposed the Iraq War during Brumfiel's tenure as president”. Citing an untruth is hardly the makings of good advertising.

3) Greg Dawes. This article was written in 2009 and I have a hard time believing that an article created four years after publication was done so for advertising purposes. This is the only article where I saw anything that might be construed as “a link to buying the book.” One link was to the Google Books page for the book which had a purchase link on the side, and the second link was to TheProfessors.org which appears to be Horowitz’s blog page for the book. It also had a purchase link on the side.

4) Sam Richards (sociologist). Another article written in 2009, it is actually rather balanced for such a short piece. Skywriter is incorrect in that originally it was three sentences long, not two, and is also incorrect about the link as it goes to the article on Horowitz himself, not the book. After reading the article and the edit history I am at a loss as to why Skywriter holds this article up as “example of how Wikipedia is used to create free advertising for David Horowitz enterprises.”

5) Michael Vocino. Created basically by a single editor over a two day period, it simply states his listing in Horowitz’s book but not the reason why, but then neither does it give the location of the nearest book store where it is available.

6) Michael Bérubé. While this article may have been created as a result of his mention in the book, it gives a very evenhanded, if not pro-Bérubé, presentation of his little tiff with Horowitz. I defy anyone to read the initial version of this article, as well as the edit history of its first editor, and honestly say that it was written by Horowitz or one of his employees.

So after clicking all the links to the academics who are listed, particularly the more obscure names, I have come to the conclusion that, 1) the statement that these articles were “created solely to advertise this book” and/or “created solely to embarrass the subject” is false, 2) that the statement “No details were given in any article of what led to that person being identified as ‘dangerous’, just a link to buying the book” is false, and 3) I can find no evidence whatsoever that Horowitz or his employees are attempting to “systematically create biographies of living people” for any reason. The facts just do not support the accusations that are being made. Hammersbach (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hammersbach demands a reply and this replies to that demand.

1) Marc Becker. This one actually looks like it was created as a direct result of the book with the initial edit citing not only his listing in the book but also the reason why; because he, and Historians Against the War, opposed the United States' war in Iraq. Of special note, it looks as though Marc Becker himself edited this article... by adding a reference for Horowitz’s book!

Reply There is no controversy[29] associated with Becker editing his own brief WP page because his changes are factual and unchallenged. The practice has been frowned upon since Jimmy Wales' edits placing himself in a pleasing light. For a long time, the author Robert Bateman was deeply involved in editing No Gun Ri. His book heavily criticized the Associated Press account of No Gun Ri. Bateman later demanded that Wikipedia remove his bio page and this was done. Elewhere on this page, I have made the point that some of the scholars whom Horowitz accuses have replied and their replies are not included in this article. Becker's page has improved with edits over the years. That it was created as part of a WP:SPAM offensive is not in dispute and neither are Becker's edits.

2) Elizabeth Brumfiel. This one also mentions her inclusion on the list and why, but does so by pointing out that it is based on “an untrue assertion that the (American Anthropological Association) had opposed the Iraq War during Brumfiel's tenure as president”. Citing an untruth is hardly the makings of good advertising.

Reply PR people will tell you any advertising is good advertising. Stating a negative and then its opposite is hardly in line with WP:BLP. Horowitz's book is riddled with errors. Is it Wikipedia's responsibility to document every error in his book by creating a biography of all of the people about whom he states untrue claims, then to say the Horowitz claim is untrue. Is this what an encyclopedia does? The history of Elizabeth Brumfiel clearly shows this article was created to advertise the Horowitz book.

3) Greg Dawes. This article was written in 2009 and I have a hard time believing that an article created four years after publication was done so for advertising purposes. This is the only article where I saw anything that might be construed as “a link to buying the book.” One link was to the Google Books page for the book which had a purchase link on the side, and the second link was to TheProfessors.org which appears to be Horowitz’s blog page for the book. It also had a purchase link on the side.

Reply When it was created has no bearing on whether it is advertising. Publishers love older books where they can still make money. Published in earlier years, they are called midlist . Your point-- that this is an example of spamming Wikipedia with free advertising--is well-taken (though you reverse yourself in your conclusions).

4) Sam Richards (sociologist). Another article written in 2009, it is actually rather balanced for such a short piece. Skywriter is incorrect in that originally it was three sentences long, not two, and is also incorrect about the link as it goes to the article on Horowitz himself, not the book. After reading the article and the edit history I am at a loss as to why Skywriter holds this article up as “example of how Wikipedia is used to create free advertising for David Horowitz enterprises.”

Reply This article was created by unregistered user who calls self Roshidog[30] and who has no other edits except to create Sam Richards (sociologist). This is an example of spamming Wikipedia with free advertising. Whether link is to author or book is beside the point, and you know it. Whether article is two or three sentences varies with time, and, in any case, is pettty distinction,

5) Michael Vocino. Created basically by a single editor over a two day period, it simply states his listing in Horowitz’s book but not the reason why, but then neither does it give the location of the nearest book store where it is available.

Reply Whether it states location of the nearest book store is not evidence of not WP:spam. I do not think this article was created to advertise this rightwing author's book. As with some other articles, I think his acolytes took advantage of its existence to plug the book. Let me put this another way. Fact that Horowtiz attacks people is neither unusual nor notable. It is what he is paid handsomely by the foundations of extremely rich people to do.

6) Michael Bérubé. While this article may have been created as a result of his mention in the book, it gives a very evenhanded, if not pro-Bérubé, presentation of his little tiff with Horowitz. I defy anyone to read the initial version of this article, as well as the edit history of its first editor, and honestly say that it was written by Horowitz or one of his employees.

Reply Like Chomsky and Zinn, and a few others on The List, Bérubé is comparatively well-known and, yes, has biographical articles on Wikipedia. Many others on The List do not. Your repetitious phrase "neither does it give the location of the nearest book store where it is available" is not evidence of the absence of WP:spam. Repeating the phase makes your post longer but also WP:TLDR.There are others on The List for whom there are no articles, and yet The List has appeared and disappeared, over the last four years, depending on who is monitoring this non-notable article without reflection of their viewpoint. Your conclusions, based on these six of 100 names is unpersuasive. Why do you support the inclusion of 'The List for which the accused are not accorded the opportunity to defend themselves via secondary sources? Is it your intent to make this article the WP equivalent of the Star Chamber?

You offer no information on any of the six that you bothered to check on what exactly Horowitz claims about them that leads to the assessment that they are dangerous. Your conclusions are not fact-based and therefore unreasonable.

You continue to ignore the central question underlying the existence of this article, and in particular The List. What, besides your personal WP:POV, makes this book notable and therefore worthy of an article in an encyclopedia? Skywriter (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the central point, Hammersbach-- the article history in each case. That some of these professors are well-known and do have pre-existing articles is beside the point. Some of them are emeritus and not in the classroom anymore. By the way, there are 100 professors listed in Horowitz's book, not 101 as the title falsely claims. My references had absolutely nothing to do with the current state of these BLPs but the article history before the spam was removed. Bérubé is discussed in this article in the context of his having sparred with Horowitz in response to the book and that he was attacked on the FP website and the fullness of his answers censored. Some of these people, such as Bérubé, were in a position to speak up for themselves in prominent publications, such as the NYT et al., and some gave their responses very thoughtfully and are posted at the web site of Free Exchange on Campus. Until the last week or so, THEIR RESPONSES HAVE BEEN DELETED (REVERTED) from this article on the book. This article consisted of The List</> and little else other than those named are dangerous.

The great majority of their answers, though on the Web, are not referenced in this article. All we see is a list with a link to each person's place of employment. Are you familiar with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan?

And no opportunity for the people on The List to defend themselves. Though many of these 100 people have replied, and their replies are findable with a lot of searching on the Web, their replies appear nowhere in this article. By the standard you suggest, we are not supposed to care about them? Their replies count for nothing? It is only what they are accused of that matters? That's fairness?

Here's news--this article and none of the BLPs it formerly linked to offer ANY inkling of why Horowitz names them as dangerous</>. It simply states these people are dangerous</> as if dangerous</> were fact, in each and every case, and yet, there exists careful replies from many of the people targeted on The List and their replies either do not appear or have been removed from this article. And yes, you are right, none of the free advertising for which Horowitz Enterprises used Wikipedia went into any detail at all in any case that I saw what exactly was his problem with each of them. No, instead, as does this article, in each case it was a list and nothing else. A list of one man's opinions about a wide range of people whose politics he hates. Why is this notable? What is the encyclopedic value? Everyone has an opinion just as everyone has a particular part of the anatomy through which the body excretes waste. Why are these opinions notable?

Becker gave thoughtful answers[31] to a student reporter that ends with this: Q. How healthy do you think the overall state of academic freedom is in this country? Is Horowitz the exception or the rule?

A. Horowitz is a wing nut, and picking on people like me just shows how out of touch with reality he is.

We live in perhaps the most undemocratic country in the world in terms of people's engagement with the political system and a sophisticated understanding of politics. Academic freedom is like muscles in that if we don't use it, it begins to decay.  We need more people who are willing to speak out against social injustice in the world. Academic freedom will be fine as long as we claim the right to political expression. Horowitz wants to intimidate people like me who oppose imperialism and neoliberal economic policies into being quiet. If we are quiet, than we have lost our academic freedom. Skywriter (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the beginning of this thread Skywriter wrote, “In case anyone doubts that this article is anything more than spam, I challenge you to click the links to the academics who are listed, particularly the more obscure names. Look at the history of those articles and you will notice that they were created solely to advertise this book.” So I took up this challenge and found that the accusations that Skywriter was making were baseless. I found nothing that supports his false claims that articles were “created solely to advertise” and “solely to embarrass”, and commented the same. In the response to this, Skywriter writes, “I believe you are missing the central point… the article history in each case.” I find the comment that I am “missing the central point” to be, at best, disingenuous. Skywriter was very clear that he was referring to the causes behind the creating of these articles, not their overall history. To now claim something else is revisionist.

Skywriter wrote, “By the standards you suggest, we are not suppose to care about them? Their replies count for nothing? It is only what they are accused of that matters? That’s fairness?” I am completely baffled by this remark. What standards did I suggest?

“Some of these people, such as Bérubé, were in a position to speak up for themselves in prominent publications such as the NYT et al…” I am very glad to see that Skywriter now agrees with a point I made earlier, namely that “the New York Times found the (book) 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) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is it unacceptable for an editor to write in Wikipedia that Horowitz’s says in his book that Marc Becker is dangerous, but apparently acceptable to write here that Becker says in a student newspaper that, “Horowitz is a wing nut, and picking on people like me just shows how out of touch with reality he is.” If there is a BLP concern with the first, why not the second? Isn’t this a bit of a double standard? Hammersbach (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Free advertising campaign for David Horowitz enterprises

Here's an example of how Wikipedia is used to create free advertising for David Horowitz enterprises. Roshidog exists as an editor on Wikipedia in exactly four edits, and only four edits,[32] all for the purpose of creating an article on Sam Richards. The linked article consists of two sentences, one of them to advertise a book by Horowitz enterprises.[33]. That one sentence links back to the article for this talk page.Skywriter (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Another egregious example of using Wikipedia as a channel for free adverising

Nothing like free advertising link spam on Wikipedia to go after a political opponent at that person's place of work, an example I have since removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truman_State_University&oldid=335971932 See also

• The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, a book by David Horowitz that mentions TSU professor Marc Becker

Skywriter (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Added here. Unless similar ips are spamming this, I don't see any large problem. --Ronz (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That was remarkably poor editing slip up. The editors on that page should have removed that long ago as inappropriate. But is this advertising or ideology? Who can say? I don't know if focusing on motive really accomplishes anything here. Our goal of improving Wikipedia articles is the same regardless of the motive of the editors who add crap like that. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through all the articles that link to this one, removing two per WP:BLP. I see no evidence that the link was added in a coordinated way to advertise. In fact, it was added to Larry Estrada by Estrada himself as a badge of honor. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity & balance

"Smear", "Salem Witch Trials", "Joe McCarthy and his list of reds", "voodoo doll policy", editors "gone over to the other side", etc & etc. What the hell exactly is going on here? To me it comes off no different than a political attack ad. This is an encyclopedia for COL. I'll tell you one thing, regardless of personal politics our primary concern should be to give this book an objective and balanced entry. And then let the reader decide for himself whether it has merit or not.

Personally I don't care one way or the other about the book. What I do care about is the political agenda I perceive being foisted on it. I do care about the author's (any author's) right to be heard and get a fair shake. I don't want to convert anyone to any "side". I don't want to make sure somebody doesn't see a list of people the author thinks is "dangerous". I have more respect for the reader than that.

The article is already tagged as unbalanced and representing only criticisms. The recent additions are heading in the wrong direction as far as I am concerned.

Let's try and work together and make this article a worthy contribution to the project. Political agendas have no place here. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

New user, beginning in November, from IP 76.231.247.6, writes--The article is already tagged as unbalanced and representing only criticisms. The recent additions are heading in the wrong direction as far as I am concerned. That sounds like a political agenda.

Your participation in this article comes in the form of repeated acts of reverting other editors. Have you read the book? Did you miss the part about Joe McCarthy and the accusations about who Horowitz claims are present day Reds?

Now you make a plea for balance yet continue to ignore all requests for links to reliable sources that recommend this book.

Got any? Skywriter (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So let's take these things one at a time. Right now the article contains only criticisms of the book. In fact the criticisms outweigh the text on the book's argument itself. I state that adding more criticisms without counterbalance is heading in the wrong direction vis-a-vis balance. This sounds like a political agenda to you? - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you did not answer the question Now you make a plea for balance yet continue to ignore all requests for links to reliable sources that recommend this book. Got any? can we take that as meaning you know of none?

Ever hear of a book or movie being panned by critics? This book was widely panned. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that could be its sole claim to WP:notability. Some movies are so bad, they become cult favorites that regularly play at midnight at local theaters. This article was originally put up as advertising, and more than 20 articles were created and linked to it to attack the academics mentioned. Mention in this book was one of the two bare bones paragraphs in each of the articles created solely to use Wikipedia as a channel for free advertising. Don't believe it? Click on the names on the list and look at the history. I recently went through and took the advertising out of each. Why? Because nothing unique or of substance was stated about each individual. Only the fact that Horowitz had attacked them in this book. Not even what he said. Just that he attacked. That's not notable but it is free advertising on Wikipedia that treated every one of these academics with a one-size fits all boilerplate designed to advertise this book. That's not encyclopedic. It's free advertising. If those who chose this article as a cult favorite had allowed (and not reverted) all of the replies from the various targeted academics, this article would not be the failure it is. It would be lively and interesting. There would have been an honest give and take of information. As it stands, it is just another channel of free advertising for Horowitz enterprises and Regnery publishing company. So that's the history of "The List" and why I took it down, only to be reverted three times by you. "The List" is dishonest in its purpose and an ethical embarrassment to Wikipedia.

So again, here's the question. You make a plea for balance yet continue to ignore all requests for links to reliable sources that recommend this book. Got any? Skywriter (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement anywhere on Wikipedia for reliable sources to "recommend" a book. Where is that coming from? What policy are you talking about? Which reliable sources "recommend" Mein Kampf? What are you talking about? Why haven't you nominated this article for deletion? What is stopping you, and keeping you arguing on this page instead of fixing everything NOW? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a requirement that notability be established. My phrasing may have been off but that's what I intended. The Wikipedia policy page Wikipedia:Spam suggests several choices for dealing with spam. I have chosen the tag I think most appropriate and have worked hard, spent many hours, improving this article by researching the topic and adding content, and by explaining on this talk page why this article previously had been spam, and that problems with it continue. I have also discussed why The List, as written right now, is inappropriate, that it would be fair to include the names of the people Horowitz does not like but only with their replies. That would be fair. The way that table was set up, it is not possible to do that. I don't know enough about table formatting to make it better.

Your comments, as an administrator, directed at me are surprising and also heated. You write--What is stopping you, and keeping you arguing on this page instead of fixing everything NOW?

It is my understanding that editors try to work things out on the talk page, that articles evolve over time. Why don't I fix everything now? Wow. I thought Wikipedia was collaborative. I work a full-time job and have other responsibilities. I thought Wikipedia was a volunteer endeavor. I've contributed for five years to Wikipedia and have never before had an administrator demand "What is stopping you, and keeping you arguing on this page instead of fixing everything NOW?" Skywriter (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but as for myself, I suspect we are in a general agreement about what to do about this page. However, I can't read your mind and I can't know what specific things you would do to address the problems you see. The best person to address what you think is wrong with this page is you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter, an administrator is just an editor with a few more buttons.

If you think the topic is non-notable, you have multiple options. Continuing to edit the article and argue on the talk page is a perfectly legal, and perfectly foolish strategy. Nominating the article for deletion is, frankly, the only sensible thing to do when you don't think the topic is notable. It's a simple choice: settle the question, or keep arguing about it for years?

Then there's this content that you say has been repeatedly deleted, but I don't see anyone deleting it now. I'm ready to support the inclusion of this content, but instead of putting it into the article, you keep arguing here. I don't get it. It's like your goal is to waste time, rather than to make things better.

What on Earth can we do to help you? What do you want to see happen with this article? Do you just wish to yell at people on the talk page? Please say what should happen with this article, so we can just make it happen instead of complaining that it hasn't happened yet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent)"The List" should not run without detailed answers from each and every person accused. Since "The List" is one man's opinion of who's "dangerous" and who is not, and since "The List", as it repeatedly shows up through reverts, offers no details at all why this opinionated person believes other people, whose politics do not agree with his own, are "dangerous", this article is utterly Bullshit without responses from each of the accused. While some editors say this book has no notability, DMCer and the unregistered user who has reverted four times to reinstate "The List", claim the book is notable -- but have not yet shown that to be the case. Reviews of the book, when it was published in 2006, demonstrate, at best, a level of sloppiness that would not be tolerated in any peer-reviewed process. The public affairs person for Regnery Press said that this publisher has no fact-checking process and that this book was not checked for facts. For example, and as with many of the scholars whom Horowitz accuses, Professor Anatole Anton responds that nothing in the chapter addresses either his research or his teaching. Dr. Anton asked Brown University Professor Emeritus Richard Schmitt[34] to respond to the accusations against Anton and Dr. Schmitt did so[35] here. I have no problem with mentioning the scholars that Horowitz accuses so long as their responses are included. Free Exchange on Campus contains the responses of more than 20 percent of the accused professors. Wikipedia editors have long known of these responses to Horowitz accusations. The only issue is whether their responses will continue to be suppressed. Skywriter (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Skywriter on this point. If we are to include the list, then we should include all the responses we can find by the individuals on this list. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this an "if" situation? Why not just include a lot of responses, because duh? Is there anyone arguing that we shouldn't include responses? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The list

I've removed it per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Sourced information related to both the book and the specific person on the list might be appropriate, depending upon the source. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply--it's not a biography. The source is the book itself, a perfectly acceptable source.--Drrll (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" - WP:BLP --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're asking for a standard higher than even BLPs. The list is just stating the presence of someone in a book--mentioning a person's inclusion in such a list in a BLP would be acceptable as long as there was a reliable source and this book is a reliable source.--Drrll (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note the emphasis in WP:BLP to third-party sources. Quoting WP:BLP:

"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"

"Caution should be used with categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

"Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims."

"If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

"Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe any of those points are relevant to this dispute. The guidelines you keep referring to specify that "sourced information" is needed when making claims about BLPs, weather in their article or not. In the case of including the subject (namely, the list) after which the book is named, your BLP points would be relevant if there were any dispute about whether or not this book existed, or whether it's notable. The fact that both of those questions have been answered, and the long discussion above, indicates to me that the list it isn't a violation of any Wikipedia policy (it is also in no way "free advertising" as another editor keeps insisting).—DMCer™ 05:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"your BLP points would be relevant if there were any dispute about whether or not this book existed, or whether it's notable" Not at all. I do not see how this claim has anything to do with BLP or how it's applied. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

DMCer--you aver that the question of whether this book is notable has been answered. Where and what is that answer? Is there consensus on whatever the answer is? thanks. Skywriter (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DMCer, controversially reverted to include The List, and asserts, in the edit, that"notability has been long since established".

Notability has most decidedly not been established.

I have repeatedly asked DMCer et al. to prove notability and this has not been done. DMCer claims the NYT reviewed this book in the book review section of that newspaper but has not provided a link though DMCer has repeatedly been asked to back up that assertion with a link.

Where has this book been reviewed in the book review section of any media? Skywriter (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found the NYTimes review and added a quote from it to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

@Skywriter: I'm not sure if you're just discounting the sources, or the links mentioned on this page, but I'll explain (again) why it's notable. In addition, if you read the bottom of this section you were pretty much the only one who disagreed with the current state, which included the list. That was consensus before, and the appropriate thing to do would have been for you to take your concerns here, rather than changing the status quo to your point of view as the discussion progressed. As far as notability is concerned, it's quite simple. Wikipedia:BK#Criteria states:

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

As other editors have previously commented, a cursory look turns up:[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43]; and that's from a 3 minute search. I ask that you try to put your ideological differences aside, and focus on WP guidelines; additionally, it doesn't speed up the process by accusing random forces of promoting "free advertising" on Wikipedia. That's not what this is about. Your additions have been rather — if I may — POV, and the "Argument" section, which should do no more than state the author's main thesis, overwhelmingly contains negative commentary from critics—including a three-paragraph block quote. That is an example of WP:UNDUE; the list is not. I'm going to move the criticism to the appropriate section, then it should be easy to see how blatantly biased it looks.—DMCer™ 22:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to take this one by one, DMCer. Your first link, [44] is on the subject of Academic Bill of Rights and only peripherally mentions this book. So as not to pollute this encyclopedia with spam,would you agree that these two articles should be merged? Academic Bill of Rights and 101 professors? Skywriter (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

[45] Is this a joke, DMCer? The link is to a blurb about Berube's book.Skywriter (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

[46] This is a legitimate [[WP:RS}}. I don't understand why no one added it earlier. This article has long been a scandal. The addition of text makes it better because it explains the ideological battling. Attacks on individuals, however, particularly in the absence of their replies, violates WP:BLP Skywriter (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that I am alone in opposing the listing of 100 academics, you are factually wrong.Skywriter (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree that the article meets WP:BK? --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The proliferation of all of these articles on one subject is not notable; it is WP:spam. I do support the merging of some of these articles into one.Skywriter (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"I am going to take this one by one, DMCer" Please explain them all. If there are two sources, then WP:BK has been met, correct? Rejecting only one accomplishes nothing here. --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Skywriter: Please read Wikipedia:BK#Criteria. Your objections are not making sense, as this is not spam. The articles I and others have listed clearly show the book is notable. You picked out one link from eight, and took issue with it. It's not fruitful to waste time beating a dead point: The book has been established as notable. If you still disagree with the numerous other editors on this page, I suggest you seek a third party opinion. —DMCer™ 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent)I am going through your links, one by one. I just added the National Review text and as a legitimate link. This article has long been open to criticism because it lacks text but gratuitously attacks individuals without using their responses to those attacks. And, just for the record, why didn't you add to the article positive reviews, such as the National Review item that you just now newly found tonight? If NYT and National Review make it notable, then Ronz position is correct.Skywriter (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You previously wrote, "DMCer, controversially reverted to include The List, and asserts, in the edit, that notability has been long since established. Notability has most decidedly not been established." Since, based on your last comment, you're finally in agreement that the book is notable, I'm including the list. There are more editors here who have expressed their views that the eponymous list belongs in the article. If you disagree, don't just revert it like you did, discuss it until/unless there is consensus to remove it. Also, the critical blockquotes you're adding are getting a bit ridiculous. Reviews should be summed up in a sentence or two, and one review can serve the place of others which may say the same thing. Pasting 16-sentence paragraphs of a review in this article is unnecessary and excessive. You're also changed the "Argument" section to "Controversy," perfectly demonstrating a negative, but common, trend on Wikipedia. The aim is to summarize the thesis of the book, not to push a point of view by replacing information about the book with a "Controversy" section. If these types of things continue, the next constructive option would be to seek Arbitration. —DMCer™ 10:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)