Jump to content

Talk:Howard Zinn/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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

Semi-protecting

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

“anarchist AND socialist”?

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

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

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

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

It is complicated, but Zinn, during one of the autobiographical passages in a recent publication says while discussing his experiences in World War ll, "But disillusionment with the Soviet Union didn't diminish my belief in socialism any more that disillusionment with the US diminished my belief in democracy." [1] Who knows what he is now, but Zinn makes it clear that he was a socialist then. Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I inserted a quote and paraphrase from Zinn in that interview, and it was removed. I think that it's important because (1) Many socialists and anarchists try to claim him for their own, as above (2) Many critics call Zinn a socialist pejoratively (3) Zinn praises many anarchists and socialists, and has a favorable chapter in his book. Unless somebody can give a good reason for avoiding the subject, I'm going to replace it somewhere. --Nbauman (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd say go for it. Pinkville (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I objected to splicing together two different quotes and the interpretive wording that went with it that jumped a beat and did reflect what he was saying. No question that he identified with and respected the anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman and socialists Eugene Debs et al. He wrote extensively about them, including the play, Emma. The 2003 link was moved to external link area. That interview itself is not of sufficiently high quality that it should be in the lead of this article. His books and even this, [1] better explains his socialist/anarchists views. Should there be a separate section on his anarchist/socialist views? (I could support that). Obviously his topical views are now incorporated into the different sections. Skywriter (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "high quality." It contains direct quotes from Zinn in context, and it's a WP:RS. In the Counterpunch/Alternet article you link to, Zinn calls himself an anarchist, but he doesn't mention the word socialist. The question of whether or not he's a socialist is important (much more important than for example the long catalog of his books), because his critics have called him a socialist pejoratively. If Zinn addresses the question, it should therefore be included in the article, not in a link in a footnote. Do you have a better source on whether he's a socialist? --Nbauman (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The easiest, least ambiguous source for Zinn's anarchism and socialism is a two sentence quote from the article I linked above:
Interviewers: How would you describe yourself politically? Do you consider yourself an anarchist or a libertarian socialist?
Zinn: Something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist. [2]
Pretty clear cut and easy to use, I would think. Pinkville (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, put it in. --Nbauman (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE BY Mumbo-Jumbophobe 2010-07-30

I read a piece on Zinn on the right=wing web site Accuracy in Media

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/leftist-“historian”-howard-zinn-lied-about-red-ties/

stating plausibly that Zinn was a member of the Communist Party in the 50s and other things about his politics. Allegedly based on FBI documents released pursuant to a FOIA request. This Wikipedia article on Zinn says nothing about Communism. I think this gap should be remedied. I don't think it's a good idea to conceal embarrassing details like CPUSA membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Revisionist historians (American)

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

The article Revisionist historians (American) is inadequacy sourced. It would be nice to hear other opinions on this. Dynablaster (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not an article yet - it's just a stub. But the expression, "revisionist" with respect to American historians is very well documented. So it would be nice to have others help write this article too. I don't want to be the only one. But Zinn is one of these so-called "revisionists." This expression is used in many places to classify well-respected American historians. Unfortunately, Holocaust deniers would like to be though of as being a part of these scholars - but they are not - except according to themselves. But there is a link - that true - through a historian named "Barnes." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Quite honestly, it's a poorly-sourced and poorly-written stub about a subject of some controversy, and attaching this term right now violates WP:BLP. Sure, this term probably has been applied to him, but the article needs proper references and an encyclopedic tone and formatting before we use it in an article about a living person. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The controversy that you're concerned about is the result of of other expressions, one of which may be a neologism sanctioned by Wikipedia: historical revisionism (negationism). But that other - legitimate - usage predates the rise holocaust deniers. There is nothing disparaging about the earlier usage - except that of being on the left of center (not a right-winger for sure, or even being a Democrat rather than a Republican. But I do not understand why you are critical of a {{:stub}} - a "stub" needs development. Furthermore, the stub does give a set of individuals with which Zinn is associated. And none of these would libel Zinn by associating him with them. In fact, all are extremely reputable American historians. So your "honest" objection does not contribute to the discussion regarding the issue of Zinn's status as a "revisionist," as American historians were classified before holocaust denial gain predominance. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
My problem isn't that it links to a stub, it's that the article needs a complete rewrite to be comprehensible. I mean, with statements like "This usage is to be distinguished from the one which makes reference to the class of authors known as Holocaust deniers who also call themselves "revisionist historians."", an average reader is going to say, "I don't know what that means, but I see something about being a Holocaust denier" even though (I believe) the exact opposite is meant. I'll be in favor of linking to it once the stub is neutral, referenced, and encyclopedic. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. I certainly agree with you. But just because Wikipedia's article(s) is/are poorly written, does not justify omitting the fact that Zinn is commonly known among scholars as a revisionist. If you don't like how these articles are written, by all means, please edit them. But don't engage in newspeak and censor out this fact because you wish to protect Zinn, or the reader, from misunderstanding. That's not the right way to be informative in an encyclopedia. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:BLP, that is exactly what we must do. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is ("must do"), but it seems appropriate to remind you of our American Freedom of the Press rights. Howard Zinn is a revisionist historian, and there are (many) sources for that fact - he's in the class of historians to which William Appleman Williams belongs (that's not bad company - unless you're a (extreme) right winger. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I noticed that the fact that Zinn belongs to that class of historians has been simply deleted - on the grounds that it does not belong in the "lede"(sic) paragraph. So why not put it elsewhere - I think a delete is inappropriate. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just Reverted the effective Reversion. If this fact should not be in the "lede" [sic} - then it should be placed elsewhere - but not simply deleted, removed, or reverted. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
And here's a list of other notable "revisionists" with whom Zinn is associated - all reputable American historians:
So please do not remove the fact from the article - the fact of his being grouped with these notable American scholars. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Two points. First of all, there is no purpose whatsoever in simply applying a label ("revisionist") in the lede or anywhere else in the article without explaining how that is related to Zinn. Who called him a revisionist? What views did he challenge and revise? You say there are many sources referring to him as a revisionist, yet no sources have been provided. Second of all, I agree totally with those editors who question a link to the very poor article stubb. Providing some consensus is reached to include the term at all, then a better link is to the article Historical revisionism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Actually the only thing that "retelling" implies is that something is being told again. You miss the point of the objections that have been raised. Of course the article already explains what is new and significant about "A People's History of the United States". What is missing is any link IN THE ARTICLE to historical revisionism and that book. It is poor wikipedia writing to throw in a term in the lede and then leave it to the reader to find how that relates to the body of the article. I'm not saying the info doesn't exist -- I'm saying its not in the article.
The second problem is that if the reader follows the link to revisionist historians (American) they don't learn anything relevant to Howard Zinn. At worse, they will assume that Zinn must have written primarily about WW I and foreign affairs since that's all the article addressed. Do you really believe that this article stubb gives a reader a better understanding of the subject than the article Historical revisionism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's one reference:
  • The Cold War as Rhetoric: The Beginnings, 1945-1950, by Lynn Boyd Hinds, Theodore Otto Windt Jr.; (Praeger Publishers, 1991. 272 pgs.)

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

I just glanced at the wikipedia article Historical revisionism and discovered that it begins:
Within historiography, that is the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations and decision-making processes surrounding an historical event. The assumption of the revisionist is that the interpretation of a historical event or period as it is accepted by the majority of scholars needs a significant change.
It seems to me that this definition fits Zinn's work pretty well. We don't really need the new article at all. Do we? Carptrash (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
But we do. That article, "Historical revisionism," I think, is primarily "original research" in my opinion. The problem is that these American historians I wrote about are not known to have formulated an explicit historiography, the way Toynbee, for example, has. Nevertheless, it's common scholarly knowledge who these "American revisionists" were. I do not agree that it's appropriate for us to write out a methodology for these historians if (1) they did do so, (2) and there are no studies by secondary scholars explaining what such a "revisionist" believed in. Wikipedia does not allow us to engage in "original research." So I think that the "header" needs editing. If you look carefully, you should be able to see that I'm not responsible for the header, and neither am I responsible for the article to which it links. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Notice, also, that there's no reference for the "nice" quote you found. I believe that it's "original research" by the editors Wikipedia there. Should i offer you $1,000 if you find me a scholarly reference for that in and work on historiography? I don't believe you'll find such a source - because it's purely the "original research" Wikipedia editors. Now it's true that historians may discover new archival material, or claim that some "facts" have been misinterpreted, and proceed to write and publish a new work presenting a historical even with a novel interpretations. But that's just what historians do all the time - it is not a novel historiographical methodology as is claimed by these WP editors. Hope I've made my point. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have read through this thread and do not support the inclusion of the term revisionist in this article on grounds it is unnecessarily vague and the advocate has provided no sources for its inclusion. Like "reform" , the term revisionism is in the eye of the beholder and can mean different things to different people.Skywriter (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Recent revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's keep in mind the 3 revert rule, etc... There is no rule on the number of external links allowed, and the 11 in this article hardly seem excessive. I don't believe you have yet adequately justified removing this particular link. finally, consensus isn't needed for adding content unless there is existing contention... not the case here. Pinkville (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:EL makes it clear that "[s]ome external links are welcome . . . but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". Please see WP:LINKFARM. YouTube is specifically referenced in WP:ELNEVER and WP:YOUTUBE. Our policies on biographies of living persons states that "[e]xternal links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles". In this case, the onus is on those who wish to add the link to provide a rationale, and also for providing proof that it does not violate any copyright. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

My primary concern at this point is one of copyright, but I also fear that we're on a slippery slope of links. Especially since the other videos are hosted by their copyright owners, this one sticks out like a sore thumb. I wouldn't be opposed to its inclusion if we can establish that there is no copyvio and also if something more were included in the EL section, maybe a title or a brief description of the talk. Or, better yet, if we could include some of Zinn's comments from the interview in the article itself. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please note the wording in WP restrictions on linking: Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright... Ad Skywriter's assessment seems to me sound that the copyright is probably with the International Socialists and that the videos were posted by the same so that there is no infringement. Pinkville (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Where is the evidence of infringement, Wyatt Riot?

Zirin is a member of ISO.[3] ISO placed the video on YouTube. The videos begin and end with a plug for Haymarket Books, the ISO publisher. Are you claiming Zirin has violated his own or ISO's copyright? What exactly is your argument? Where is the evidence? What are your proofs? Why are you wasting our time with this revert war? Skywriter (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Speculating about the uploader based on those facts is WP:SYNTHESIS, plain and simple. Never mind, though, I see this is going nowhere. I've brought it up at the BLP noticeboard. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Your assumption is speculative, Wyatt and your arguments rapidly changing. The YouTube video reference you want so badly to remove, without consensus on this board, are clearly marked as to origin and credit. Your arguments are moving targets. At one point, you argue there are too many references and this particular link should be removed for the reason that there are too many. At another point, you contend (but show no evidence) of copyright violation (but fail to state whose copyright) and then you amend that argument to say you would like to quote from the video that you'd earlier claimed violated some unspecified person's copyright and you say you'd like to insert quotes from that video into the article. Do you know what you want? Skywriter (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let me try this again. The video is most likely copyrighted, by the ISO or possibly a parent organization of the ISO, or maybe by the individual who filmed it. Hell, maybe the ISO declares all of their content to be public domain or Creative Commons licensed. We just don't know. In any case, the video was uploaded to YouTube by someone who may or may not be the copyright holder or affiliated with the copyright holder(s). The use of leet in his username makes it seem highly questionable to me. (As I said at the BLP noticeboard, when I see a video uploaded by a user named "M3T4LL1CA", for example, my gut instinct says he doesn't own the copyright.) I didn't notice a clear copyright attribution in the video, and we have no other way of knowing that the copyright holder(s) approves of this video appearing on YouTube. Now, as this is a BLP article, we need to be extremely conservative in our editing and avoid any semblance of impropriety. It is also Wikipedia policy (again, especially true in BLP articles) that it's the responsibility of those who add material (or revert the removal of material) to verify that it meets all of our policies. (For example, if someone were to come along and remove one of the unreferenced paragraphs, the person who reverted that removal would be in the wrong unless they provide a proper citation.) This video may not violate anyone's copyright--again, I don't have a clue if it does or doesn't--but we simply don't know at this point, and nobody has yet provided adequate evidence that it meets Wikipedia policy. The best thing to do, at this point, is to remove the video until we can straighten everything out. Now, if we do verify that copyright isn't an issue, we can move on to how the video should be used in the article. Personally, I'm torn about whether or not it should even appear in the external links section. I think we're already on a slippery slope, getting to the point where we have too many links, but if this video is especially valuable I would be fine with keeping it as long as we give a brief description of its contents, maybe a title, something like that. (As an aside, I think the rest of the external links could use the same treatment.) However, I can also see where it could detract from the section, as we already have a number of "notable" interviews (and by that I mean interviews hosted by notable or reputable organizations) and this just seems like a random YouTube video tacked on at the end. (I can't speak for Vector by, but I think this is his position.) If we do decide to keep it in the external links section, okay, but if we don't then I'm sure the interview can act as a reference for the article itself, maybe provide some quotations or something. But I think that discussion is a little premature now, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
So, to summarize: the video's status on YouTube is questionable. Because of the nature of this article and because at least two editors have removed the video, it's up to those who want it here to prove that it meets all Wikipedia policies. (I'll help, I just don't know where we would start.) If we verify that it does policy, we can then discuss how to use the video, but that's probably premature at this point.
I'll also ask that you remain civil and assume good faith here, Skywriter. We both ultimately have the same goal: writing a better encyclopedia article about Howard Zinn. Copyright violations--even potential ones--are a big concern of mine, as I believe they discredit the reputation of the whole project, not to mention the individual articles where they appear. I hope this helps you understand my position, which I personally feel is backed up by Wikipedia policy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Awards, references in pop culture and other accomplishments

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

Family info in intro

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

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

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

You Tube Revisited

A new user has twice added a direct link to You Tube (see diff [4]) from the article. The intent is to use it as a source for a statement by Zinn regarding 9-11. I have reverted this twice -- once assuming good faith and the second time assuming vandalism. The problems, other than style, are that (1) unlike the You Tube link discussed above, this link is not supported by Zinn or someone he agreed to e interviewed by and (2) at best it is a primary source that is being used to support an opinion by the wikipedia editor. The link to You Tube is [5]. In any event, I do not feel that this link, or material based on this link, belong in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I entered the article about Zinn and 9-11, with the video of zinn commenting on his views on the subject, once you watch the video, there is no way you can denial he his claming that America policy, caused the attack.--Crt43 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me refer you to WP:PSTS which states:
Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.
You are trying to provide your personal analysis of the content of the television comments that may or may not have been taken out of context. Whatever Zinn’s views may be on 9-11, they can only be reported in wikipedia to the extent that they are analyzed by reliable secondary sources (as opposed to political blogs). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New user & sourced statmets

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

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

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

So let me get this straight.

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

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

Torckey, please follow the advisory links (above) so that you may learn what are acceptable sources for inclusion in encyclopedia. You quote a blogger Mariel Garza saying "A People's History contains these words. "One among them slew his wife as she slept in his bosom, cut her to pieces, salted her and fed upon her till he had clean devoured all parts saving her head." I just checked. It does not. Please cite reliable and truthful sources. Skywriter (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Skywriter. The statements and this article fall under WP:BLP, which is followed very strictly. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ditto from another Zinn watcher. Carptrash (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

The preceding unsigned statement was added by Torckey though it is unclear to what Torckey refers.
Skywriter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of the quotes provided by Torckey have no attributed source. It seems clear, however, that the ACTUAL source for ALL of his/her edit is an unsigned article here [6]. It seems like Torckey has deliberately hidden the actual source of his edit. In order to be taken seriously, Torckey needs to:
  1. Establish that this website represents a reliable source,
  2. Explain why he left out the positive comments from the website,
  3. Establish that each person quoted is a reliable source,
  4. Establish where the quotes came from originally, and
  5. Establish that the quotes are not taken out of context.
If all of the above is accomplished, then the next task is to provide a balanced section. All Torckey is providing is an entirely negative section with an overriding theme that the commentators don't like his politics.
To show the extent of the bias involved in the selective quotes, one of the sources (O'Brien) writes of Zinn's work, "This book is built on the personal accounts of these young men and women. It is journalism; it is “human interest”; and it is valuable." Compare this to what Torckey (and the website) choose to write concerning O'Brien, “SNCC is not going to save the world. By suggesting it could, Zinn places SNCC's true greatness in a possible (but very doubtful) future; and he needn't have.” Seems to me there is a much more nuanced review out there than Torckey would have us believe. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Then it might be worthwhile reading Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you should give specifics instead of quoting the very lengthy and broad Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It may be obvious to you how it violates it but don't be so arrogant as to presume that your reasoning is correct and others will discover it on their own and then follow it in lockstep.Chhe (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/Unbalanced

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

The point has been made above, but let me repeat. The criticism needs to be substantive and provided by a reliable source. Your suggestions are neither. Pinkville (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes. Tagging the article with an NPOV tag is inappropriate without supplying a rationale for the tag, which you have not done. Pinkville (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Please sign your comments by typing 4 tildes : ~~~~ Pinkville (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You mean, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."
Or maybe, "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."
Multiple editors have now insisted that you provide reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Please provide them. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I have provided reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability and the fact that others saw fit to remove them is why (among other reasons) this article is obviously unbalanced. --Torckey (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Not true. You have very clearly NOT made any demonstration that your edits were relevant. Rather than summarizing both the positive and negative points from scholarly reviews, you have simply copied out of context quotes from a website -- qutes from sources that you apparently have not read. You were asked to provide the context for these quotes and have refused to do so. Interestingly, you did attempt to provide links to two of the authors (Margaret O'Brien and Simon Lazarus), but one goes to a movie actress and the other to a 19th Century businessman. So much for your claim of these folks "notability". Rejection of your single website as a source does not constitute a POV dispute nor does your repeated "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" constitute an actual discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. --Ronz (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the two POV tags that were in the article. These were never justified and the objections that were raised (themselves, never justified) were not about POV. Pinkville (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Torkey's edits were just more of the same as discussed in this section. I've started a discussion about the On Obama section below. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

CPUSA / FBI claims

Made an edit to the FBI section earlier to clarify one line, but somebody reverted it. The section reads "Zinn denied ever being a member " and which I changed to "Zinn denied to FBI agents at the time ever being a member". This is in keeping with both the source reference from progressive.org and the original source material at: http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/zinn_FBI_doc.pdf , which make clear that Zinn did deny membership to FBI agents in the early 1950s. I wished to make the edit because it does not appear that Zinn ever denied membership since, though the current wording suggests that Zinn has always denied it - though even solely for clarification purposes I can't see the need to revert my edit.

I havn't been able to find any references that do suggest Zinn denied membership since, or even if his family had denied it - though if the family denied it, this should be added as a seperate point to Zinn's only recorded position on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.95.88 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to note further to this post that the same user reverted my edit again - so I'll leave things as they are for the moment until I hear back again. I've left a comment on his talk page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freshacconci#Howard_Zinn ) with a hope to solve the issue. My point would be that my edit is a clarification that makes something easier to understand, in very few words, and so is harmless as worst. 86.41.95.88 (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


death edit war

Please find a source and stop it. This is under BLP rules, so source or GTFO. Thats goes to you, anon.--Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing, also lets get this watched for vandals... already one idiot, bets are moar to come...--Cerejota (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
nice job on watching for vandals cerejota, keep it up. Ikip 04:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On Obama

There's absolutely no reason for the very long quote, per WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTE, and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that it is a BLP violation, I've moved it here for discussion: --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it a BLP violation?Brithans (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The quotation is about a living person, Obama. It's Zinn's opinion. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On Obama

The following was written two weeks before his death, which occurred hours before Obama's first State of The Union Address:[2]

I' ve been searching hard for a highlight. The only thing that comes close is some of Obama's rhetoric; I don't see any kind of a highlight in his actions and policies.

As far as disappointments, I wasn't terribly disappointed because I didn't expect that much. I expected him to be a traditional Democratic president. On foreign policy, that's hardly any different from a Republican—as nationalist, expansionist, imperial and warlike. So in that sense, there's no expectation and no disappointment. On domestic policy, traditionally Democratic presidents are more reformist, closer to the labor movement, more willing to pass legislation on behalf of ordinary people—and that's been true of Obama. But Democratic reforms have also been limited, cautious. Obama's no exception. On healthcare, for example, he starts out with a compromise, and when you start out with a compromise, you end with a compromise of a compromise, which is where we are now.

I thought that in the area of constitutional rights he would be better than he has been. That's the greatest disappointment, because Obama went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But he becomes president, and he's not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as "suspected terrorists." They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he's not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured.

I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president—which means, in our time, a dangerous president—unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.[3]

I agree that there is no need for such a long quote, and I see no reason why it can't be summarised. On the other hand, there is no reason to tag it in this fashion... an action that simply incites edit warring. So, let's summarise and leave it at that. Pinkville (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's a BLP violation, I was being generous by not just removing it.
A summarized version would likely have other WP:BLP problems given what we're working from, but would be a step in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a BLP violation. Opinions on LP can be quoted... But it's still unnecessary. Pinkville (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely no need for the full quote, and arguably even in summarised form it might be kind of WP:UNDUE in the grand scheme of things, but I'm a bit confused about the Obama BLP issues as well - noted left wing academic/activist criticises the policies of a US president, saying he's disappointed by Obama, in well-sourced and verifiable comments that have been referred to in several mainstream news reports and obituaries about Zinn's death. I'm not sure the BLP rules are so rigid that every political comment or quote is to be excluded from pages here, on those grounds alone. --Nickhh (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
America's most popular, best-selling historian on the left, who has evaluated the past presidents such as FDR and Lincoln, evaluates the policies of the current President of the U.S. I can't think of a subject that has more weight. Can you explain why this is WP:UNDUE?
Is someone arguing that it's a WP:BLP violation to quote WP:RS critics of the President of the United States? --Nbauman (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm arguing to follow BLP and not use this article as a coatrack --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's WP:COAT: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject."
Zinn has written about and criticized former presidents of the U.S. as an important part of his professional career. Are you saying that his writing about and criticism of the current president is tangential? --Nbauman (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There's obviously no fundamental problem with quoting Zinn's opinions. That's, er, kind of the way people will find out what he thought about things, which you would have thought is partly what pages about academics and activists are for. There's no BLP issue here, and it's hardly a coatrack issue either. I did say there was arguably an "undue" issue, in that we don't need to include every thing he's ever said about anybody, but given that Reuters (and others) saw fit to mention the comments in their news report on his death, almost framing it as kind of his political will and testament, albeit unintended, I don't see the issue there really either. That he is - and always was - on the "dissenting left" when it comes to Obama seems notable to me.--Nickhh (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Re WP:COAT - this article is about Zinn, not Obama, right? Hence BLP and COAT violation.
"Zinn has written about and criticized former presidents of the U.S. as an important part of his professional career." And how much of this article is devoted to that topic? How many sources do we have to justify this coverage? Now compare this to all his opinions about Obama, and this one quote. Looks like a BLP and NPOV violation to me if the Obama quote is given mention at all.
"There's obviously no fundamental problem with quoting Zinn's opinions." Yes there is. WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, and WP:COAT, (plus WP:BLP when those opinions are about living people). --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
None of those say that you cannot, where appropriate, set out what a person's views are on political issues or on other public figures on that person's page, in order to explain more about them and their views. Mentioning briefly that in one of his final pieces of published work he was critical of Obama does not suddenly stop this page being about Zinn and make it all about Obama, which is was "coatrack" refers to. Nor does it make it a "soapbox" or somehow subvert Wikipedia's neutrality. I'm not sure you'll find many people - were you to ask them - who would accept such a rigid and idiosyncratic interpretation of any of those policies or essays. Simply throwing the letters at people doesn't act as some kind of trump card. --Nickhh (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It would be WP:COAT to use a biography of Zinn as a jumping-off point to discussing an unrelated or tangential topic. This passage consists entirely of Zinn's opinions of Obama.
In a biography of Zinn, an assessment of Obama is not unrelated or tangential. Zinn himself said that it is his job to assess Obama, and it is our job to assess Obama.
"Our job as citizens is to honestly assess what Obama is doing. Not measured just against Bush, because against Bush, everybody looks good. But look honestly at what Obama's doing and act as engaged and vigorous citizens." http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/522763/howard_zinn_the_historian_who_made_history
The obituaries http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/29/howard-zinn-history-activism , http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803804.html repeatedly referred to Zinn's assessment of Obama http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/forum/6 It's important enough to be worth mentioning not just in my opinion (which doesn't matter) but in the opinion of several WP:RS. If we omit his opinion of Obama, we'll be one of the few major biographies to do so.
I don't understand how Zinn's assessment of Obama is tangential to Zinn's ideas. If all these obituaries thought it was important enough to mention, how can it be tangential? Can you try to answer that again?
I don't think we have a consensus to delete it from the article. I think we may have a consensus to keep it in. --Nbauman (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary

OK, this is my summary. Zinn has spent his life finding out and explaining how American presidents have failed the people in the past, and how the people have organized to overcome those failings. Now, from the grave as it were, he's applying those lessons to the current President to tell us the president's failings, and reminding us that we can use the lessons of the past to push the president again.

I think that certainly belongs in the entry. In fact I think that anyone who understands and believes in Zinn's work would organize and protest to make sure it goes in.

In response to President Obama's State of the Union address, Zinn said, "I wasn't terribly disappointed because I didn't expect that much. I expected him to be a traditional Democratic president. On foreign policy, that's hardly any different from a Republican—as nationalist, expansionist, imperial and warlike." On domestic policy, he has been "closer to the labor movement, and more willing to pass legislation on behalf of ordinary people," like traditional Democratic presidents. But like traditional Democratic presidents, Obama has been cautious and limited. On health care, he started with a compromise," and ended "with a compromise of a compromise." Constitutional rights have been "the greatest disappointment," because he followed Bush policies, by keeping "suspected terrorists" prisoners without trial, by preventive detention, and by sending suspects to coutries where they are tortured.
"People are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric," said Zinn, and should understand that Obama will be "a mediocre president," which means "a dangerous president, unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction."

This summary is factually incorrect. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the factual inaccuracies? --Nbauman (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable summary to me... if still a little long. But my qualms about this section fall on two points. First, to devote this much space in the article to Zinn's assessment of Obama seems disproportionate and smacks of WP:Recentism. Second, Zinn's political and historical analysis has led him to criticise not only and merely specific presidents and their administrations, but more fundamentally, the institution of the presidency itself. I think that the best approach to a section that would include a summary of Zinn on Obama might start with the second point - Zinn's institutional critique of the Presidency, then provide a sample of some of his criticisms of individual presidents/administrations (e.g. Andrew Jackson, FDR, JFK/Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, et al) including the comments on Obama. What do you think? Pinkville (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a section on his views about the institution of the presidency, taken from either quotes or WP:RS secondary sources. But I don't know if you have room for it. Can you sum it up in a sentence or two?
WP:Recentism is an essay, not a guideline. Sometimes it can conflict with WP:WEIGHT. If Zinn had opinions on five presidents, you wouldn't have room for all five in a general article. Would the people who read this entry be interested in Zinn's opinion of Obama? I think so. --Nbauman (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Ronz, you still haven't told me what about this summary is factually incorrect. --Nbauman (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)He said and wrote a lot about Obama. I don't know that what is above is his pithiest or most considered quote or that it will be a keeper for the ages. It's quite long and has an air of crystal-ballism that Zinn won't be around to edit. The following lines from an article written for L'Humanité might be more representative of his thinking.

"What next for struggle in the Obama era?" November 5, 2008 [7] and translated back into English[8] he wrote: "...It will take a revivified social movement to do for Obama what the strikers and tenant organizers and unemployed councils and agitators of the early 1930s did for FDR, pushing him into new paths, so angering the superrich that FDR, in one of his best moments, said, "They hate me, and I welcome their hatred!"

"Obama needs such fire. It is up to us, the citizenry--and non-citizens too!--to ignite it."

Nbauman, can you live with using the L'Humanité quote? Skywriter (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Zinn is writing well for his audience, and this is standard French intellectual writing. It's very dense, and it's written for scholars who already know the subject. It brings together several different ideas, which Zinn has expressed before:
  • We need a revivified social movement.
  • We need to repeat the social movements of the 1930s.
  • Strikers, tenants and agitators in the 1930s pushed FDR.
  • They were so successful that they pushed FDR into new paths.
  • FDR resisted the interests of the superrich so much that they hated him.
  • FDR said, "They hate me, and I welcome their hatred."
I think this is too much to pack into one quote. We're trying to explain Zinn's ideas to people who may not be familiar with them. This is confusing academic writing. It's confusing for me. I had to stop and read it slowly. It's the longest sentence I read all week.
There was an article in the New York Times today called Crash blossoms about what happens whey you try to condense language too much.
Read it for clarity. Ask yourself whether this sentence is easy to understand.
I do think you have a good point about Zinn's ideas on the institution of the presidency. I'd have to read Zinn's history again (or even better for WP:OR purposes, those obituaries and reviews) to see exactly what he wrote.
Can you summarize Zinn's ideas on the institution of the presidency in one sentence? (Preferably with a WP:RS) That would be a good way to start. --Nbauman (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So sorry for not being clear. I propose only using these words from that article, and nothing more: he wrote: "...It will take a revivified social movement to do for Obama what the strikers and tenant organizers and unemployed councils and agitators of the early 1930s did for FDR, pushing him into new paths, so angering the superrich that FDR, in one of his best moments, said, "They hate me, and I welcome their hatred!" "Obama needs such fire. It is up to us, the citizenry--and non-citizens too!--to ignite it."

What do you think? Skywriter (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: you wrote--"Can you summarize Zinn's ideas on the institution of the presidency in one sentence?" reply--I'm not sure that is a complete theme. Zinn was most interested in social movements and how they effect social change. The italicized quote above aims directly at that in that it compares the present economic turmoil to the last great period of economic turmoil in US history and picks from that era what he thought it took to bring about social and economic change. (Zinn wrote two books and many articles on the New Deal so I think this is appropriate.) An alternative idea is to pick one of his many comparisons between Lincoln and Obama. He compared them by saying they each faced a population deeply divided politically, and, he examines what pressures were brought to bear on Lincoln that turned Lincoln's mind from lukewarm opposition to slavery (and sending all Blacks to Africa, a theme Eric Foner explores in his most recent book on Lincoln) to Lincoln ordering outright abolition of slavery. A People's History is the antithesis of the "great men do great things" approach to history. Zinn highlights what movements of people do to bring about change i.e. agitation by abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass. When he wrote about LBJ, he did not say LBJ was a great man who took it upon himself out of the blue to get civil rights laws passed. Not at all. Zinn talked about how the great people's movement struggled for that change and that LBJ rubber stamped it. Skywriter (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Skywriter,
It's not you that's unclear, it's this French sentence that's unclear.
We're trying to introduce our readers to the ideas of Howard Zinn. We have to do it one idea at a time, in a logical sequence.
First, we have to explain what Zinn says happened under FDR.
Then, after the reader understands that, we have to explain how Zinn says the same thing applies to Obama.
Then we have to explain how Zinn says we should do the same thing to Obama that the worker's movement did to FDR.
The French sentence has it backwards. First they tell you that a social movement should do the same thing that the social movements did under FDR. Then they tell you what happened under FDR. It's deliberately backwards. The French actually have a name for this style -- they call it "retrograde." It's not a style you use when you want to explain something clearly to people who may not be familiar with the subject.
As I understand it (although I don't understand it precisely, and I need a WP:RS), Zinn says that presidents were always members of the ruling class. They protected the interests of the ruling class, and some of them were even slaveholders. Even FDR started out by protecting the interests of the ruling class. But a strong social movement of workers and organizers grew up during FDR's term, and forced FDR to advance the interests of the working class. FDR advanced the working class to such a degree, that the wealthy classes finally hated him, and FDR said....
You've probably read more of Zinn than I have. Does that accurately reflect Zinn's view of the presidency? --Nbauman (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to explain the New Deal or presidency of FDR. That's what links are for. Among other things, you wrote, Zinn says that presidents were always members of the ruling class. Zinn does not say that. I know of no one who does. While it may be true in some cases, it is not in others. e.g. Lincoln was born in a rough hewn log cabin.Skywriter (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. This may not be the best WP:RS, but this interview with Zinn is right on point. http://bad.eserver.org/editors/2001/2001-1-31.html
[Zinn:] So sure, you can go back to the era of the robber barons in the late 19th century and say here we have Bush again, representing robber barons. But it would be deceptive to pretend that this is a departure from what we have had under Clinton or Carter, just as McKinley wasn't a tremendous departure from Grover Cleveland. Grover Cleveland was a Democrat -- and McKinley was a Republican. And although McKinley was more in tune with corporate power than Cleveland, Cleveland was certainly a friend of big business and not a friend of labor. It was Grover Cleveland who brought out the troops in 1894 to break the Pullman Strike.
The point I'm making is that whether you have a Republican or a Democrat in power, the robber barons are still there. If you look at Clinton, his administration was very good to the corporations. The Dow Jones average during the Clinton years went up from four thousand to ten thousand. Well, whom did it go up for? Who benefited mostly from that? The great stockholders of the nation are the ones who benefited the most. Under the Clinton administration, more mergers of huge corporations took place -- more than any others that had ever taken place before under any administration.
I'm saying this not to soften the impact of Bush's alliance with the rich -- only to say that the Democrats have made a similar alliance with the rich, except that they cover this over with a lot of different kinds of rhetoric and a softer approach because the Democrats need the votes of the labor unions, women and black people. Nevertheless, whether you have Republicans or Democrats in power, big business is the most powerful voice in the halls of Congress and in the ears of the president of the United States. So Bush is more of the same, only more so.
--Nbauman (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
What you say is not wrong though it needs direct sourcing. Zinn cited his teacher Richard Hofstadter's --book on the similarities between the Dem and Rep parties-- numerous times as one of the strongest influences on his thinking.
While I don't think this article can or should go too deeply into the weeds on this, it is useful to note his frequent citations, through the years, of Hofstadter's book as a major influence on his thinking. e.g. He cited it in every major list of books he recommended. And, after the last presidential election, he wrote, "If Richard Hofstadter were adding to his book The American Political Tradition, in which he found both "conservative" and "liberal" presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, maintaining for dear life the two critical characteristics of the American system, nationalism and capitalism, Obama would fit the pattern." Skywriter (talk)
I have used Wikipedia as a reference for several years, but have never contributed to it or engaged in any discussion sessions on it. Please excuse any mistakes I might make in protocol in posting these thoughts.

I am not a professional historian, just someone interested in American history, warts and all. As I read the article on historian Howard Zinn, I realized that it lacked balance. To me, it read like a hagiography.

The article does not mention anything critical about Howard Zinn. For example, historians on the Right (1) and on the Left (2) have referred to Zinn as a “propagandist” when discussing his best known work, A People’s History of the United States.

Criticism of A People’s History of the United States has come from both the Right and the Left. Roger Kimball in National Review Online (3) quotes a review in The American Scholar by historian Oscar Handlin of the first edition of Zinn’s book:

“It simply is not true,” Mr. Handlin noted,

that “what Columbus did to the Arawaks of the Bahamas, Cortez did to the Aztecs of Mexico, Pizarro to the Incas of Peru, and the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts to the Powhatans and the Pequots.” It simply is not true that the farmers of the Chesapeake colonies in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries avidly desired the importation of black slaves, or that the gap between rich and poor widened in the eighteenth-century colonies. Zinn gulps down as literally true the proven hoax of Polly Baker and the improbable Plough Jogger, and he repeats uncritically the old charge that President Lincoln altered his views to suit his audience. The Geneva assembly of 1954 did not agree on elections in a unified Vietnam; that was simply the hope expressed by the British chairman when the parties concerned could not agree. The United States did not back Batista in 1959; it had ended aid to Cuba and washed its hands of him well before then. “Tet” was not evidence of the unpopularity of the Saigon government, but a resounding rejection of the northern invaders.

Criticism of A People’s History of the United States also came from the Left in the form of a review by Michael Kazin in Dissent magazine (2), a Socialist publication. After pointing out the popularity and influence of Zinn’s best known book, Kazin states “But Zinn’s big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People’s History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions.” Kazin goes on to say: “His failure is grounded in a premise better suited to a conspiracy-monger’s Web site than to a work of scholarship.”

Kazin points out that Zinn sees nothing worthwhile about the United States: “The doleful narrative makes one wonder why anyone but the wealthy came to the United States at all and, after working for a spell, why anyone wished to stay.”

Kazin adds: “Pointing out what’s wrong with Zinn’s passionate tome is not difficult for anyone with a smattering of knowledge about the American past.”

The Wikipedia article mentions the fact that the FBI had an extensive file on Zinn and believed that he was once a member of the Communist Part USA. The article simply says that Zinn denied being a member and provides no other evidence to support or refute Zinn’s denial. Former Communist Ronald Radosh has no doubts that the FBI’s 423 page file on Zinn amply documents Zinn’s membership in the CPUSA (4). Radosh is in a position to know; he is a former CPUSA member on whom the FBI had a 500 page file. I believe the article on Howard Zinn should have addressed Zinn’s Communist past more forthrightly and commented on how it influenced his scholarship and world view.

I welcome comments and discussion on the issues raised in this commentary.

1. David Horowitz. “Spitting on Howard Zinn’s Grave?” http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/30/spitting-on-howard-zinn’s-grave-2/ accessed May 5, 2011. 2. Michael Kazin. “Howard Zinn’s History Lessons.” http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=385 accessed May 5, 2011. 3. Roger Kimball. “Professor of Contempt.” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229071/professor-contempt/roger-kimball accessed May 5, 2011. 4. Ronald Radosh. “Aside from That, He Was Also a Red: The FBI’s history of Howard Zinn.” http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/aside-he-was-also-red accessed May 5, 2011. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo von hoffmann (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not ready for GA

Thanks to everyone for their hard work on this article. It's very far along but I came to review it for GA and see that it would have to be failed at this stage unless some changes are made. I'll list them here and check back in a week or so. Namely, the lead needs to be expanded to two or three paragraphs because of the length of the article. The lead should summarize the scope of information contained in the rest of the piece. Also, every paragraph should have at least one citation. This should come after the final sentence if one reference was the source for all the information in the paragraph. Otherwise, the source of each piece of information needs to be included at the end of the relevant sentence(s). Lemurbaby (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirection to "a part of the male anatomy" has been reverted!

Unfortunately, when I reverted the edit by IP #71.161.112.27 that had totally blanked this article, I got an error from the system that a certain link called >>http://www.educationupdate.com/<< had been blacklisted. As you can see from the difference of my replacement with the original text, the only diff. is this reference. If someone can fix this (or get that site off the blacklist), please do so. Thanks. --Skol fir (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, 25 November 2013

An interview with Zinn is featured in the documentary film "I Am" (2011) by Tom Shadyac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrismi (talk • contribs) 11:41, 25 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Not done: I think you mean I Am (2010 American documentary film). To be added to the External links section the interview would need to be available to view online, where there are ample interviews already. --Stfg (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia apparently blacklisting Beacon Press

Somebody smarter than me and above my pay grade might try to figure this out. To fill in request for citation, I tried to add a link (without the space) <http://www.bea con.org/Assets/PDFs/pentagon_35.pdf> to Beacon Press where a PDF of a masters thesis answers the flagged question-- when was the Gravel edition published? When I tried to save with citation, the robot said the cite page was blacklisted. The attempt at placing the cite came in this area: "and published on October 10, 1971, this four-volume, relatively expensive set[4] became the "Senator Gravel Edition", which studies from Cornell University and the Annenberg Center for Communication have labeled as the most complete edition of the Pentagon Papers to be published." The blacklist notice states: The following link has triggered a protection filter: beacon.org Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

So I dropped the citation. But this seems like a dumb blacklisting robot item.Skywriter (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Howard Zinn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Howard Zinn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I just cut this "Further reading" out

Gagliano, Giuseppe. L'intellettuale in rivolta. L'antagonismo politico attraverso le riflessioni di Zinn, Buber, Chomsky. (Editrice Uniservice, 2010). was recently changed to “* Gagliano, Giuseppe. Potere e antagonismo nel socialismo libertario del Novecento. (Editrice La Scuola di Pitagora, 2016).” In trying to track this down it does not appear to be essential Zinn reading especially since it is in Italian, so I removed both. Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Zinn, Konopacki and Buhle, A People's History of American Empire: A Graphic Adaptation, Metropolitan Books, NY, 2008, p119
  2. ^ From Cristy Lenz, CNN. "CNN,'People's History' author Howard Zinn dead at 89". Cnn.com. Retrieved 2010-01-28. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ "The Nation, "Obama at One"". Thenation.com. 2010-01-13. Retrieved 2010-01-28.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference nyt081871 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Howard_Zinn/Archive_2&oldid=1068425152"