Talk:Grover Furr/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The articles

The articles about Soviet Union are so idiotic that I support keeping the list. Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

“Stalinism” as such never existed. It was simply an epithet that applied to the overwhelming majority of the international Communist Movement that rejected Trotsky and looked to the USSR and the Comintern for leadership in liberating the working class. [1]

The working class was exterminated, one can say liberated from life.Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of CVs or resumes. The list of articles needs to be removed, regardless of whether they're "idiotic" or not, and regardless of what ideology they support. The only exception is if there are some super important, notable articles which changed an entire literature or sub-field. Even for Nobel prize winners we list only the key contributions. Same rules apply here. Unless some of these articles are especially noteworthy they need to go. Although I'm somewhat sympathetic to Xx236's reasoning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes. In addition, having such lists serves as an advertisement. In addition, the list of books should be trimmed down (there are repeats), and translated to English. One segment of text seems of no significance and supported only by doubtful Chinese refs which were not translated to English. If translated, they might stay, but not as right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Marek, can you cite that part of the Wikipedia rules which allow only for listing "some super important, notable articles which changed an entire literature or sub-field"? --Ismail (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

His papers might be useful only as inline refs, but they are primary sources and therefore undesirable.My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We're not using them as references though, I'm asking what part of Wikipedia's rules is against listing the bibliography of an author. --Ismail (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ref 3

An example "When Yezhov himself was executed, Stalin claimed, in a private conversation with aircraft designer Aleksandr Yakovlev, that it was because he had killed a lot of innocent people". It's so idiotic that a reader's brain can be damaged. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think Yezhov did, indeed, kill a lot of innocent people and that it was suitable grounds for him being executed, but that's just me. --Ismail (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yezhov did exactly what he was ordered by Stalin. (Nikolai Yezhov As a devout Stalinist and not a member of the organs of state security, Yezhov was just the man Stalin needed to intensify the terror and rid Stalin of potential opponents.) Who cares what a politician (especially a cruel dictator) claims about himself? The world isn't able to function withouth eg. North Korean leaders. Polish POWs run away, according to Kremlin. Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Stalin wasn't talking about himself, he was talking about Yezhov. In any case Stalin's words about Yezhov are irrelevant to this article. --Ismail (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tag

In the two months since this tag has been put onto the article there's been no example of how it fails to pass neutrality guidelines. It does not endorse or defend anything he has written, and it also points out the criticism he has received from both academic (Haynes and Klehr) and other sources. Seeing as how the content of the article pre-NPOV tag was already debated at some length, I am reverting it to the state it was in before the tag was added. This does not mean the article has no room for improvement, but any changes to it should occur after discussion and consensus reached on the talk page. --Ismail (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

List of articles

As far as I know there is nothing in Wikipedia prohibiting a list of articles written by an author in his own article. It is no more "promotion" than listing any other aspect of his bibliography. I also find it a bit silly that out of 19 articles two of them are found to contain dead links (because the website changed its URL) and this suddenly means the entire list must be obliterated. So I fixed the two dead links and restored the articles. Again, if Wikipedia's rules say otherwise, I will gladly oblige. --Ismail (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Which rule are you talking about, exactly? To my knowledge, WP rules prohibit link spamming [2]. Moreover, WP is not a directory to provide a list of every publication by a person (possibly a few hundred), although providing a list of most important books probably would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not talking about any rule in particular because I am not aware that there exists any rule prohibiting a list of articles written by an author in his own article. The rules you gave in regards to link/citation spamming clearly do not apply in this case (e.g. no one is "populat[ing] numerous articles with a particular citation"), nor can I see how the dictionary claim is valid. --Ismail (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal of the list of articles. This person appears to be known for one fringe claim that received very brief coverage in very few reliable sources. He does not appear to be widely known for his body of academic work. Given the paucity of reliable sources discussing the subject, I think WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROMOTION need to be taken into account. - Location (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the articles on that list are published in reputable journals. I see no reason for excluding such articles from a list of works by him. I fail to see how they constitute a form of promotion or are unnecessarily long additions to the article (especially since they can be shortened, formatted differently, put in some sort of "spoiler" tag, etc.) --Ismail (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but providing that many links to personal WP:FRINGE sources/theories does constitute promotion in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And in my opinion it does not. What would constitute promotion would be to go on at length about his particular views, which clearly isn't the case with a simple list of articles any more than the article is "promoting" Furr by listing his books. --Ismail (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is simply WP:LINKSPAM; the discussion of views is irrelevant. Some people have hundreds publications. Do you suggest to provide links to all of them? This is not CV. Now, speaking about the lists of books, they also may be excessive and could be shortened, depending on various factors. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how the inclusion of links to the articles (which are hosted on various different websites and therefore cannot be used to promote a particular website) constitutes "link spam." Even if it did, it still wouldn't justify removing the list of articles (it would only justify removing the links to websites hosting said articles.) --Ismail (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not promotion of website, but promotion of a person and his fringe theories. Could you please show me any other BLP pages with that many links to articles by the subject where he/she struggles to "disprove" mainstream views? My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You brought up "link spamming," but now that the links are removed you went back to trying to get the articles removed in general. In any case, the David Irving article lists his many books, translations, monographs, as well as his "collected articles in German." I could list other persons and their Wikipedia articles but I point out Irving because he's far more notable than Furr and his page has been heavily modified and debated about for probably over ten years now. I don't think anyone would come to the conclusion that because Irving wrote books and articles, and because those books and articles are noted in his biography, it must mean "you, the reader, should read these books and articles." --Ismail (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is good example. Irving is someone much more notable than Furr, but his BLP page lists exactly zero links to his articles, but only lists his books [3] as anyone cane easily check [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ismail: At least four different editors have reverted your addition of the list of articles since the end of March: Volunteer Marek (diff), My very best wishes (diff), TheTimesAreAChanging (diff), and myself, Location (diff). It is clear that your continued insertion of the articles does not reflect the consensus here. Please stop. - Location (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what is so poisonous about listing the writings of a person in his own biography. The guideline about spam doesn't apply; same with the guideline about Wikipedia not being a directory. As well, it is not promotion to list a person's writings, nor is it undue weight. In fact it's encyclopedic information.

Certainly some of these writings will be more important to Furr's body of work, commented upon by multiple third party sources. Such writings can be discussed in prose in the article body. But a list of works is just like listing a birth date and place; neutral information about the person. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet. Did you actually read these links/sources by Furr and do you know what he is telling? Was it interesting? Was it informative? Did you learn something after reading his "studies"? I think this a historical nonsense, not notable even as a conspiracy theory any more than already written on this page. It does not really add any value, any valuable information to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that Furr publishes a bunch of stuff outside of his field of scholarly expertise which is generally the English language. Better than reading Furr is reading reviews of Furr's writings, and I can see he's not so very widely respected for his defense of Stalin or his views on the Katyn massacre. However, his writings often provoke a hot response, and I see no reason why we should fail to list them. (If his writings were dropped into a vacuum then that would be a stronger argument for not including them.) I appreciate your providing URLs. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

He tells that Bukharin was guilty as charged during show trials, that Khatyn execution of Polish officers was committed by Germans and other things which have been admittedly disproved long time ago, even in the Soviet historiography under Khrushev and Gorbachev. Should publications by "deniars" be included in their BLPs? Yes, sure, but on a reasonable scale. See, for example, David Irving which is a good article. He is a lot more notable figure than Furr. However, his BLP includes only his published (not self-published) books and "translations", which were also published in books. Here, most of the article links lead to Furr's own website or publications in strange places. Therefore, this looks like promotion and spam to me. It still might be OK if his views were something non-contentious, but what he writes are offensive materials. I also do not think his writing promoted a lot of response. If they did, this should be reflected in a lot of 3rd party RS (which could be included), but I do not really see them. My very best wishes (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone here able to verify listed Chinese texts? Are they translations or new texts?Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, and this is precisely the point.My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Delga

la recherche marxiste et l'histoire du mouvement communiste international Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Rationalwiki about Furr

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stalin_apologetics

I don't know if the article is a reliable source, but it suggests to be careful when reading/quoting Furr. The article quotes [5].Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki is not a reliable source, no. I will quote from their article on Reagan: "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan, aka. Grandpa Caligula, Teflon Ron, or Ronnie Raygun (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was a B-movie actor with a long career. If you want to know how the United States transformed into an international laughingstock in the course of 30 years, here's a pretty good place to start." --Ismail (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, another wiki is not an RS. However, they did some work digging out other sources that might be used here, such as this, this, and video. One of them tells that "Furr has no credentials as a historian". This is an interesting wiki, and I can see some familiar faces out there. Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Montclarion link was mentioned in the article at some point. I have no problem with it, or the "Discover the Networks" link, although we already have a citation of Horowitz' work (and DTN is basically a project of his.) --Ismail (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

From Eksmo

In 2011, Eksmo was criticized for publishing books which glorify Stalin and his henchmen, such as "Renaissance of Stalin", "Beria, the best manager of 20th century", and "Handbook of Stalinist" by Yuri Zhukov.[5] A group of writers and artists, including Alexander Gelman signed an open letter questioning such editorial policy. Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and? Why are you bringing this up? What does this have to do with Furr's article? --Ismail (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

One of his books was published in a series called "Stalinist", together with Zhukov and other similar people. That makes him an openly (self-admitted) Stalinist writer. This probably should be noted. That's unusual. Imagine a University professor who openly supports Hitlerism...My very best wishes (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it means that the publishing house decided to list him as a "Stalinist" writer. --Ismail (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the link to these books by Eksmo. He contributed to a large series of books openly (self-admittedly) written to whitewash crimes by Stalin and his regime. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Eulenspiegel Verlagsgruppe - Das Neue Berlin,

• GDR roots
• Financial problems.Xx236 (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The respective article on German Wiki says it specializes in publishing literature bvy former GDR cadres and Stasi officers. But I dare say even they are too "progressive" for a Stalinist nut like the subject of this article. --Dorpater (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak on behalf of Furr, but I would guess his opinions on the GDR are not exactly positive. That being said, I don't see how this is relevant. Furr was recently interviewed by Sputnik, that doesn't mean he endorses the Russian government. --Ismail (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

List of articles redux

There's still no reason that I can see for the removal of Furr's articles. There's no "link spam" (which was one allegation), it's hardly a case of promoting the subject of the article (considering it's a bibliography, not an endorsement), it doesn't unduly lengthen the page, and all the links are in working order. --Ismail (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Some academicians publish hundreds of articles but their biographies don't list all of them. Why is Furr special and his non-academic fringe texts are liśted here?Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have only now realised that no Medieval English literature paper by Furr is listed here. This a biography of a historian, who has his shameful hobby Joseph Stalin. It's unfair to ignore academician's professional career and describe his perverted hobbies.Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I removed this list again per consensus previously established on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

3.2 as a teacher

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=23883 Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. Grover Furr isn't notable for being a teacher of students in his classroom. --Ismail (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

He isn't also notable as a historian of Soviet Union. Why does he have a page here?Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Chinese reference

Apparently there is a part of the rules which prohibits "untranslated references on Chinese." Either that or a perfectly valid reference was deleted for no good reason. --Ismail (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no ban on non-English sources. See WP:NONENG. It was no good reason, although there may be another reason that is good. Mnnlaxer (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I followed the link, and it led here. This is not a valid link, and not a reliable source for English WP. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It may come as a surprise to you to know that sometimes web URLs change and the original links can die out. In any case I have complied by adding a translation as well as a URL that works. --Ismail (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Came up fine when I checked. Looks that someone added a bunch of characters at the end, making it not load up properly. Once you delete those, restoring it to [6], it loads up fine. (Downix (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC))

• These are simply not WP:RS. I left frontpage magazine for now. It's a little more reliable, although also a questionable source, especially for a BLP last discussion. It can be removed as well.My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how a link to Montclair State University's website is "unreliable." It's not Furr's personal webpage hosted on the University's server. --Ismail (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There exists censorship in China.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? The Polish Academy of Sciences was founded when Poland was an avowedly socialist state. Does that mean any journal, book or article published by it from 1951-1989 cannot be cited on Wikipedia? --Ismail (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Texts about Soviet Union or 20 Century Poland aren't reliable. Try to find anything about Katyn or other Soviet crimes. Wikipedia is influenced by Communist lies quoted by naive readers. Many elderly Poles understand Communist texts, it was called "reading between the lines". The same some German Jews interpreted Nazi propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether you think something is "Communist lies" or not has nothing to do with Wikipedia's definition of reliability. A country's academic institutions and the books, articles and journals deriving from them are almost certainly a reliable source per Wikipedia's definition. Remember, the Chinese sources aren't being used to say that Furr's work is correct, they're being used to show the reception Furr's writings have gotten not just in the United States but in other countries. --Ismail (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The University link does not really tell anything about him or his work. If he is someone notable, his work must be described in 3rd party publications, such as journals and newspapers that would be regarded as RS on RS noticeboard. So far, the best source I have seen here was frontpagemag. That's OK, it can stay. My very best wishes (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The University link was cited concerning his educational background and his current job at Montclair, not for his writings. One would think something as basic as a brief mention of what Furr does for a living would be perfectly fine material for a biography, and I have no idea why you removed it in favor of a "citation needed" tag. --Ismail (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This link [7] simply does not tell that he teach since 1970, as written on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth "Discover the Networks" says "Since 1970, Grover Furr has been an English professor at Montclair State University in Montclair, New Jersey." --Ismail (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

English professor - his English is probably perfect, but it doesn't make him an expert in Soviet/Russian matters.Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Luckily for you it appears that Furr has never claimed to be an expert in that subject. --Ismail (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Last edits

Here. First, the intro/summary must be specific. He is known not as a notable academic-researcher, but for his book(s), mainly "Khrushev lied". Second, this man is on a self-admitted quest to exonerate Stalin. He never denied this. Third, yes, the official position by Russian government and practically all respected scholars about Katyn is important and relevant. Finally, the opinion by Horwitz is also important as one of very few notable people who commented about books by Furr. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

My intro was specific, noting his present occupation as well as what he's better known for. What I removed was an unnecessary and silly summary of his book Khrushchev Lied from the lead when the biography section already explains the book's argument. Second, I doubt "exonerate" is a neutral term. Third, what Russia's parliament says about Katyn belongs on the page about it; if you want to say that Furr disagrees with the consensus, do so, but specifically referencing the Russian parliament is unnecessary. Fourth, I shortened the mention of Horowitz because I don't think it added to the article to reiterate that Furr has a view of Katyn that isn't mainstream, among other things.

Anyway, besides that, you removed two books from Furr's bibliography: 苏共二十大。“秘密报告” 与 赫鲁晓夫的谎言 and Le Massacre de Katyn. Une réfutation de la version « officielle »? You argue that these are merely translations, but do you have evidence for this? It is entirely possible that there can be different versions of the same book in different languages. In fact I'm quite sure this is the case with some of Furr's works. You also removed the Ma Weixian quote because it's "unsourced," but I should be able to find the source if you'd like. --Ismail (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead does not include any summary of book Khrushchev Lied, it only notes that he is known for the book. Both versions of intro note his occupation, which is "an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University". What do you suggest instead of "exonerate"? "Whitewash"? That is what he openly does. These are translations of the same book, as one can easily check using Google translate [8]. If you can source the statement, please source it and re-include. No problem.My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply, I was a bit busy. The lead in your version includes mention of "Khrushchev Lied where he describes the 'Secret Speech' by Nikita Khrushchev as 'lies'." At the very least, the last part of that sentence is not needed. On the issue of "exonerate" there can be other words used such as "defend." As for the books you removed, I'm not certain that they are merely translations; I will check into it later but for now I won't put them back into the bibliography. Finally, I re-added the Ma quote with the citation. --Ismail (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek reverted my edits, saying that "some of those changes might be alright but some of them def involve POV removal of well sourced info." Marek, can you give examples of the latter?

Also, as far as translations go, is there actually a policy on Wikipedia to exclude translated works from bibliographies? --Ismail (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I agree with MVBW that changing "believes" to "maintains", while seemingly a subtle change, is POV. Likewise "exonerate" is appropriate. In fact I would change it to "attempts to exonerate". The quote from Ma Weixian is undue and appears to be a way to try to legitimize Furr's fringe believes. I don't understand why the sourced statement "despite Russia officially admitting their role in the killings as of 2010" is being removed, although I would change that to "despite Russia officially admitting as of 2010, that it was the Soviet Union which carried out the killings" - two things there are that it was Soviet Union, not Russia, and it wasn't just a "role in" the killings, it did the killings (we wouldn't say "Jeffrey Dahmer had a role in the Dahmer killings").Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "maintains" is more fitting for an encyclopedia, hence why I use the word. I don't think the quote is undue, insofar as it points out the reception one of Furr's books has gotten abroad country, and is also used to help demonstrate notability. As for the mention of Russia's parliament, I don't see how it's relevant to the article. It would actually be relevant to link to criticisms of Furr's views on Katyn from reliable sources, not "Furr says one thing, but the Russian parliament says something else." If Furr were writing about the Russian parliament's resolution on Katyn that might be relevant to the article, but he isn't. --Ismail (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Russkii Vestnik

Russkii Vestnik is orthodox and was changing its POV from Stalinism to Monarchism. It's interesting if they share Furr's opinons now.Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether they share Furr's politics is irrelevant, the point is that his work received coverage in that newspaper, which is a notable newspaper. That's why it was cited. --Ismail (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Received, but the times is changing.Xx236 (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The newspaper has the motto "Those who love the Tsar and Russia, also love God".Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that RV had ever "changed" its outlook from Stalinism to Monarchism. It was a hardcore monarchist rag in the 19th century and was reestablished after the fall of the USSR with the same ideology. They have simply supplemented their monarchism-traditionalism with Stalinophilia, like most other Russian traditionalists. I've this context to the passage.Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Opening of the article

I put this as the opening of the article. My additions are

Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University. He is however best known as the author of several books that explore the historiography of Joseph Stalin, and especially the book Khrushchev Lied where he describes the "Secret Speech" by Nikita Khrushchev as "completely and provably false", using material from Soviet archives.

There is no bias here. The current opening is biased since it repeats what his ideologically motivated critics say about him such as the claim that he wants to "exonerate Stalin". Furr does explore the historiography of Stalin, and Khrushchev Lied, does use revelations from the opened Soviet archives. My edits were not POV. 100.9.209.77 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Including articles in the bibliography

I've seen nothing in Wikipedia's rules or really anything on this talk page (beyond not liking it) against including the articles of an academic in a page about them. I'd like to get this issue settled before addressing other parts of the article. There's also the issue of deleting books in the bibliography because they're supposedly just translations, even though that doesn't seem to be the case. --Ismail (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure repeatedly deleting a large section of an article (when it clearly isn't nonsense spam and no substantial arguments have been put forward against its inclusion) constitutes vandalism, and I am willing to get an administrator involved if necessary. I still have seen nothing in Wikipedia's rules against inclusion of a bibliography in the article of an academic. If it's too long then the bibliography can be couched in a box users can click on to view it, as is the case with other articles on Wikipedia. --Ismail (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

He is however best known to a small group of Stalinists.

Grover Furr is a university professor, so his biography should inform about his professional way, not about his shameful hobby. Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

Translations of the same books are listed here as different works. Charles Dickens bibliography lists first editions in English only, no translations.

Furr isn't a historian, his books present his individual opinions. Such hobby is called fr:Violon d'Ingres in French, explained as Recreation. At the same time this article doesn't cover academic papers by Furr. Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

https://cartesianproduct.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/why-you-cannot-always-trust-social-media-a-practical-example/Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree about translations of the same books. One can mention that he has no degree in History, however anyone who writes about History may be described as a "historian". It is important that at least some his articles and books were not self-published. The academic papers (if any) can be properly covered in the text only if they were mentioned/described in other publications. Most his papers were never used or quoted by others for obvious reasons. If something was quoted by 3rd party RS, then yes, it can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean his papers about medieval literature. His texts about the SU put him into "lunatic fringe" (I'm not a native speaker, so my wording may be incorrect).Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There are other Neo-Stalinist writers like him - see here; we have pages about them, i.e. Yuri Zhukov (historian), etc. Most of them deny Soviet responsibility for Katyn massacre, justify Stalinist purges as something needed at the time and therefore very positive, etc. This is like a modern-day author telling that the Holocaust was a good thing. Yes, this is obviously fringe, I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The mentioned YZ has just perished.Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

On recent edits

I don't think "the Ukrainian famine was not intentionally engineered" is a fringe point of view. Alexander Dallin, J. Arch Getty, Moshe Lewin and Robert Conquest (among others) have argued against that. The Wikipedia article on the debate is called Holodomor genocide question and states in the lead, "The debate among historians is ongoing and there is no international consensus among scholars or governments on whether the Soviet policies that caused the famine fall under the legal definition of genocide." That is why I removed it. --Ismail (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The bibliography should be removed

There is an opinion that the bibliography should be removed. I support the opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not a Stalinist/Earth is flat forum.Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The article on David Irving has a bibliography of his books, translations, monographs, as well as collected articles in German. Does that mean the article is a ringing endorsement of his views? --Ismail (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

David Irving is, or was, a historian, Furr isn't.

Collected articles not texts in the net or Communist fringe editions. Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There exists a discussion, which books should be listed - the ones mentioned in the text.Xx236 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You didn't address my point that a bibliography does not indicate endorsement of the author's views, it's simply a bibliography. --Ismail (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Again on the bibliography

As I wrote two years ago, "I've seen nothing in Wikipedia's rules or really anything on this talk page (beyond not liking it) against including the articles of an academic in a page about them. . . I'm pretty sure repeatedly deleting a large section of an article (when it clearly isn't nonsense spam and no substantial arguments have been put forward against its inclusion) constitutes vandalism, and I am willing to get an administrator involved if necessary." --Ismail (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm proposing the change to make the article stronger. Making an article more expansive than customary does not reflect well on the importance of the subject. It amounts to excessive weight. See WP:EINSTEIN. It is possible that one or two articles might be especially significant, in which case they can be either listed or mentioned in the article . I've revised or copyedited or discussed about 3000 articles on academics, and I've always removed these lists as part of it. What I've done in this respect has almost never been reverted or even disputed. I continue regard the presence of this material as deliberately promotional , and, though I would hate to take this to afd again, as I think we should have an article on him, but I will if necessary.

Incidentally, the books section needs a little reorganization. We normally list translation of a work under the original, as

• Title
  • translated as , ....

The current format makes it look longer than in reality, adds to the promotional concern.

BTW, don't throw around the word "vandalism" for a content disagreement. I'm an admin, and I've warned many people who've done this. I cannot myself address this in an admin role, because I am in a dispute with you, but you're welcome to ask any other admin for an opinion about whether this is "vandalism". (they have no particular power in conduct disputes) DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As I also wrote two years ago, "If [the list of his books and articles is] too long then the bibliography can be couched in a box users can click on to view it, as is the case with other articles on Wikipedia." As for your other claims, at least some of his foreign-language books apparently contain additional or revised material (from what I've seen online), and thus aren't mere translations. I see no reason to hang the threat of the article's deletion over my head. I think it would truly be best if we can get the Wikipedia admins to make a decision on the subject, considering this issue has been popping up for years. Finally, I call it "vandalism" because I have seen other editors use the term to describe repeatedly removing large parts of articles merely because a person thinks it's how an article ought to look. --Ismail (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed this again - per DGG. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And I reinserted it again, per my reply to DGG over a year ago that "I think it would truly be best if we can get the Wikipedia admins to make a decision on the subject, considering this issue has been popping up for years" and that "If [the list of his books and articles is] too long then the bibliography can be couched in a box users can click on to view it, as is the case with other articles on Wikipedia." --Ismail (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This is typically decided via consensus. The inclusion of obscure minor works in non-notable journals or websites, redundant translations, and Amazon shopping links all count against this section, and suggest that more work should be done before this is restored, at a bare minimum. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ismail, do you have any WP:COI with regard to the subject of this page? You behave in a way it seems you do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The point, Grayfell, is that there is seemingly no consensus. For example, "My very best wishes" cited WP:EINSTEIN which concerns inflating the size of an article via "laundry lists of minor factoids." But a bibliography is not "minor factoids." We're not debating whether the article should mention a speech Furr gave at some small event three decades ago, or a discussion of his family. As for whether I have any WP:COI, I'd say no. I don't personally know him, I was never a student of his, nor do I agree with his evaluation of the Moscow Trials, Katyn, or most other things he's written about in regard to Stalin. I did, however, create the article, so that probably accounts for my behavior. --Ismail (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It was not me, but DGG who cited WP:EINSTEIN. Your objectivity is questionable because those are indeed obviously obscure minor works in non-notable journals or websites as Grayfell said, and you restore them again and again, over the objections by multiple contributors. This can be viewed as promotion or spamming. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, it was indeed DGG. I have no problem with agreeing to consensus, but when "consensus" takes the form of one or two persons citing WP guidelines that I feel aren't actually relevant (such as the WP:EINSTEIN one), it seems a bit bizarre to me. It's why I've called for the intervention of admins or some other form of arbitration to definitely solve the issue. Also, to answer an earlier post by DGG, the reason that I hadn't placed translated versions of Furr's books under "translated as" is because Furr apparently adds to the content of some of them, so that they aren't merely translations but, in a sense, revised/expanded editions of older works. I do agree, though, that it would nonetheless make sense to put them in a separate "translated as" category. --Ismail (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No one except you suggested to include these materials. As of now, I think there is a clear consensus not to include them. If you feel otherwise, you are welcome to post an WP:RfC request about it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems self-evident to me that if the subject of an article is notable for his writings on a particular topic, then it is normal that his writings pertaining to that topic be mentioned in said article, hence the bibliography which has been in the article since the day it was created. The main criticism seems to be that the size of the bibliography is "too big," but there are other articles with bibliographies that are about as large or larger (e.g. D. W. Robertson Jr.) Regardless, I think a good compromise solution is that we bring the bibliography back for now, and in a few days when I'm not so busy I will make a RfC request. Otherwise deleting huge chunks of an article because you don't like it can be considered a form of vandalism. --Ismail (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. At least six different users, including some admins, removed this stuff, and every time you restored it...

I've been too busy to respond, but as I said, "at least six different users" does not actually address whether a detailed bibliography is against the rules or not, or whether genuine consensus has been achieved. It seems to fall under not liking it rather than it actually harming the quality of the article. If anyone here wants to bring this up for some formal review somewhere, I'd welcome it. And while we're on the subject of "other stuff exists," one of the users on this talk page also recently deleted large parts of the bibliography of the aforementioned D. W. Robertson Jr. article. --Ismail (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed it again because there is a consensus to remove and there are certain rules. Now, speaking about D. W. Robertson Jr. article, is it you who reinserts the long list of his articles to the page [9]? My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that isn't my account, and I don't see why you'd think it is. As for the rest of your comment, I will simply reiterate what I wrote last year: "If anyone here wants to bring this [article] up for some formal review somewhere, I'd welcome it." I don't think a genuine consensus has been reached, nor is there anything I'm aware of in Wikipedia's rules that would prohibit listing Furr's books in other languages. --Ismail (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If your argument for inclusion is because it's not technically against any rules you are aware of, then you you need to rethink your approach. Grayfell (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

First, my argument was a response to those claiming the size and/or content of Furr's bibliography was against Wikipedia's rules. I wasn't saying "it isn't against Wikipedia's rules, therefore there's nothing wrong with it." Second, what is meant by "technically" in this context; am I in fact skirting close to breaking any specific rule in regard to the proposed size and/or content of the bibliography? --Ismail (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Providing such long list of publications (75% of the page) is especially inappropriate because: (a) they are published in obscure places, and (b) they promote extremely "fringe views", to say this politely. Few people wrote anything about Grover Furr, but those wrote something and qualify as experts, gave highly negative reviews. According to John O'Sullivan (columnist), for example, (see here, Grover Furr, is

a “historian” who denies that Stalin committed any crimes at all and who is the author of a forthcoming book titled: Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False. On reading this, my first reaction was that Grover Furr must be a fictional character or teasing Internet hoax. Revisionist historians nostalgic for “really existing socialism” have long sought to minimize the number of Stalin’s victims and the scale of Soviet crimes. But the extravagance of Furr’s claims — every accusation against Stalin false! — made it hard to take them seriously. They amount less to revisionism than to outright denial of historical reality.

.

As about Horowitz, his views on Furr [10] were not properly summarized on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the list of publications taking up "75% of the page" is relevant, considering Furr isn't known for much else besides authoring books and articles. Perhaps if Furr's Wikipedia page was huge (like, say, pages on recent American Presidents) and therefore might be slow to load on some computers, taking issue with the percentage of the article focused on his bibliography would make sense. As for Horowitz, I wasn't responsible for referring to him as far-right or whatever, that was another editor. I've been largely focused on the bibliography for the past few years. As for Furr's works promoting "extremely fringe views," I agree! But that doesn't change the fact that he still wrote those works. I've made the point in earlier years that David Irving's article has a good bibliography of his English- and German-language works (as it should), yet the man is a convicted Holocaust denier whose books are very largely criticized by historians as blatantly biased and unreliable. It should be fairly obvious that having a bibliography for an author is not honoring them, nor meant to show how "impressive" they must be. --Ismail (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is something obvious and applies to all biography pages. See here, for example. See also WP:NOT. If you do not trust all people who commented above and feel strongly about it, please start an WP:RfC]] with the question: should this list be included to the page? This is very simple question for an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:NOT, but which of the points would the proposed bibliography be violating? For instance, it isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information" (there's plenty of things Furr has written that aren't included, and which I'd have no intention of including.) I've long advocated an administrative intervention in this article to settle what seems like an otherwise endless dispute over the bibliography's size, so I do intend to act on that in the next few days. --Ismail (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome. At least two admins already removed these lists, but you reverted their edits. Now, if you want some of the articles by the subject to appear on the page, you might wish to use them as in-line references to support certain statement on the page if such statements are "due". But even that would be a poorly sourced material, "unduly serving" and contentious with regard to 3rd persons. Because that would lead to the writings by the subject of the page like Anti-Stalin Lies in Wikipedia 'Democratic Centralism' Article; in Vitalii Ginzburg NYT Obituary. He is talking about that Vitaliy Ginzburg. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with MVBW and the many other editors that have all opposed inclusion of Ismail's 10,000 byte long comprehensive bibliography. We already feature a bibliography with Furr's English-language books; it seems like WP:CRUFT to painstakingly list all of his articles in English and books in other languages, and I'm not sure why anyone would think that doing so is a valuable use of our time here on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

Some sources on this page are weak. However, as policy say, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". So, I used one of such sources to provide citation by the subject of this page about his own views. The source is not self-published, but published. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are better sources like this saying: "Professor Grover Furr, who is perhaps, apart from Vladimir Putin, the foremost current defender of Josef Stalin.". My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And there a few more sources:

1. Academic Malpractice: The Case of Grover Furr By Ronald Radosh, Nov 13, 2012
2. ‘They Lied, Nobody Died’ by Rod Dreher
3. In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Encounter Books, 2003, page 27. This book tells Furr "lauded creation of Communist regimes" in Europe and Asia because "millions of workers are exploited, murdered, tortured, oppressed by capitalism".
4. Your tax dollars at work: Prof says Stalin did not kill millions of people — that’s ‘the Big Lie’ by Washington Examiner. It cites words by Furr during a public debate: "I have yet to find one crime — yet to find one crime — that Stalin committed,” Furr said. “I know they all say he killed 20, 30, 40 million people — it is bulls–t . . . [Nazi propagandist] Goebbels said that the Big Lie is successful and this is the Big Lie: that the Communists — that Stalin killed millions of people and that socialism is no good.” The allusion to Nazi propaganda came after his interlocutor began to suggest that Furr was using Goebbels’ tactic." My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I did the best, but in terms of sourcing, this is a page to be deleted. There is only one mention of the subject in a academic book, and it is in passing. The book by Horowitz [11] - did he make all his "101 most dangerous professors" notable? I doubt. All other sources are either website by the subject or depreciated and questionable sources, although most of them are written by people who are historians with names, and only that prevents me from renominating this page for AfD again. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"crimes"

The use of the term "crimes of Stalinism" is problematic for a number of reasons, one of which is that Stalin's actions were legal. There's a reason why nobody has ever been prosecuted for any "crimes" committed during the Stalin era. That reason is because nothing done was illegal. 31.187.2.50 (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the reason is that Stalin, unlike Hitler, did not lose a war. The Nazis were prosecuted.

The reasoning "I am the dictator, therefore whatever I do is by definition not a crime" holds only until you stop being a dictator. See the lede of Crime: the word has not only the one definition you are using. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is neither educated nor relevant.31.187.2.50 (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not relevant. Neither is yours. Neither is the result of your own original research which says there were no crimes.

Instead, we follow reliable sources. And they say Stalin committed crimes and Furr denies them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You say: "the term "crimes of Stalinism" is problematic for a number of reasons, one of which is that Stalin's actions were legal. There's a reason why nobody has ever been prosecuted for any "crimes" committed during the Stalin era.". This is a highly unusual view, one that is only shared by Furr himself and his supporters (if any). It is commonly accepted by almost everyone in this field (including even "revisionist historians") that Stalin and his regime did commit a number of crimes. The only dispute is about certain definitions: should these crimes be qualified as "crimes a against humanity", a genocide, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"nobody has ever been prosecuted for any "crimes" committed during the Stalin era". What? How about Beria? My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the brief video of his presentation is available online: My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the bibliography

For multiple years now there's been a dispute between myself and others over the size of the article's bibliography. While the arguments can be read above, my argument boils down to believing my proposed bibliography is not inordinately long nor against Wikipedia's rules. I think if size is an issue (in terms of the article's height), the bibliography could either be formatted differently or there could be an option to "hide" some or all of the bibliography unless a user clicks on a button to reveal the full contents. --Ismail (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Do not include. Not only this list is excessively long (including all articles), but it suffers from two additional problems. First, those are obscure publications by a historical denialist. Secondly, the list is highly redundant. For example, even the list of books in English includes books: (1) "Trotsky’s "Amalgams." Trotsky's Lies." (2) " Leon Trotsky’s Collaboration with Germany and Japan", (3) "Trotsky's Lies." and (4) "New Evidence of Trotsky's Conspiracy". The books are about exactly the same: Leon Trotsky was an enemy of the people, exactly as comrade Stalin said. Same about Katyn massacre. Same about the Soviet invasion of Poland. Very same titles are then repeated over and over again in books in Russian and other languages and in articles published in far-left sources that hardly qualify as RS. I do not think WP is a place to promote that kind of things. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Please compare the list created for this page by Ismail with list of references on page New Chronology (Fomenko), another pseudohistorian who is probably more well known than Furr. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. For the record, I don't see the "problems" the above user mentions. First, the purpose of a bibliography is to list publications by an author; Furr writing multiple books on the same subject and with similar titles should have no bearing on whether they appear in the bibliography or not (unless we're talking about multiple editions of the same book in the same language, which we aren't.) Second, the issue is over the size of the proposed bibliography; I think we can debate the finer details of what exactly should be in it once there's a decision on whether my proposed list is too big or not. Third, as I've indicated earlier on this talk page I don't see the existence of a bibliography as implying "promotion" of anything; David Irving's article contains a bibliography of his books in English and German, quite a few of them self-published, but I don't think anyone would say that by so doing Wikipedia has "promoted" Irving's views. --Ismail (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  "First, the purpose of a bibliography is to list publications by an author" --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If there has ever been any other purpose for listing an author's bibliography, not just on Wikipedia but in any encyclopedia in history, I'd like to see it. --Ismail (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I read "biography" instead of "bibliography". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude. The current bibliography, listing Furr's books in English, seems sufficient. Attempting to list any number of Furr's articles, in the absence of specific evidence for their notability, is problematic; and the English Wikipedia probably does not need to include translations of Furr's books in other languages. The bibliography proposed by Ismail smacks of WP:CRUFT.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. The issue is whether my proposed bibliography is "too long." Specific articles being non-notable is another matter entirely, one which can be addressed if it is found "too long" isn't a valid complaint. --Ismail (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Crop down to a handful. List publications, yes. List all publications or as many publications as possible, no. Especially not with a fringe author. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

POV

The article, and even this accompanying talk page, are a dumpster fire of capitalist-apologist lies, slander and "Wikilawyering". It needs attention from honest editors...for once! 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:68B1:2090:B13:D523 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

How so? If you are not more specific, nobody will be able to help you.

Is your definition of "honest" identical with "Stalinist"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. When the complaint is just name-calling, there's nothing to address about the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I do have one question though. 2nd phrase in the lead "Furr, who has praised..." - I am sure this is true, but is it sourced to anything? My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, those legitimate historians have been praised in his works. For example, Furr praises Tauger in his CounterPunch article and does cite or praise Davies, Tauger and Wheatcroft on the Holodomor genocide question. I think the wording is fine, maybe it should be clarified that those are legitimate scholars, but revisionism is not a pejorative and I certainly did not mean to use guilt by association; it is simply true that Furr has praised them (and criticised them in a few aspects, I think). I believe the wording "holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies" made it clear that Furr holds fringe views while those were legitimate, revisionist historians. I do not know if all of them are considered 'revisionist', so that may be reworded. Davide King (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is fair enough. I agree. Whatever. I have no strong opinion about it. Let's restore. My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I reworded the opening a bit what do you two think?7645ERB (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your rewording job because you removed the term "revisionist historians" which is very relevant. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I personally think this entire sentence is incredibly questionable. For starters, why is "revisionist historian" considered appropriate when applied to Getty? He's never referred to as such in his own article–where is that descriptor coming from? And the inclusion of Davies, Wheatcroft, and Tauger in a sentence describing Furr's "fringe views" seems disingenuous. Furr's views are absolutely fringe in academia; I do not question that. The work of Davies, Wheatcroft, and Tauger, however, is hardly fringe at this point, which seems to be the clear implication of the sentence. If that is the implication of the sentence, what's the justification for calling their work fringe? If that's not the intended implication, why in the world are they even mentioned in that sentence meant to discredit Furr? And even if their work was widely considered to be fringe, why is that sentence in the lead paragraph anyway? Frankly, I think holodomor discussion would be best moved to the body of the article. Why not just "Furr holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies" in the lead, and then address Getty et al. in the body of the article? Crsini (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Crsini, as I stated above, it was not my intention to make it guilty by association, just that Furr has praised those who are legitimate historians and scholars, using them as source to reach his conclusions, etc. but that Furr himself holds fringe views, unlike them. I am certainly open to reword it. I think revisionist historian is a legitimate term in historiography and Getty is or has been revisionist in the sense that he challenged the largely anti-communist or Cold War historiography, which seems to still be the mainstream view. John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, whom we use in the body to say Furr is a "historical revisionist [...] who 'lauded creation of Communist regimes' in Europe and Asia because 'millions of workers are exploited, murdered, tortured, oppressed by capitalism', also seem, as we write at J. Arch Getty, to "criticize[...] work by Getty as apologetics for Stalin and accused them of downplaying the terror." I disagree, I think Getty is a serious historian and that just seems to be a criticism from a few fellow historians; of course, historians criticise each other works, especially in such a polarising field, so it is not surprising. Similarly, Davies, Wheatcroft, and Tauger are all serious scholars, too. Davide King (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Better source needed

My very best wishes, regarding this, neither of those sources are green, PJ Media made a bunch of false claims and Horowitz is fringe. If my wording to the lead was BLP violations, I do not see how those are not either; if their statements have not been reported in more reliable sources, they are undue. We already have criticism by actual historians John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr and by green source The Daily Beast. So at the very least, I disagree with your removal of the tag. Davide King (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not think your wording was a BLP violation. Neither the rest of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, well, what does policy says about using yellow or worse sources for BLP (even if attributed)? Davide King (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the only really problematic source was blog post by someone "Romanov" no one knows about (just removed by another contributor [12]). The publications by Cathy Young and other well known journalists or scholars like Ronald Radosh are fine. They are not "yellow press". My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, by yellow I mean that those sources (The American Conservative, National Review, Washington Examiner) are all listed as yellow at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. PJ Media, not listed, does not seem to be exactly reliable either. So we need to make sure the author has some expertise and due like Radosh to justify yellow sources. I would expect much more criticism or analysis from green and left-wing/liberal sources than yellow at best or conservative/right-wing sources. Only The Daily Beast is green. Davide King (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

As explained in policy [13], the "source" is not just the place of publication, but the creator of the work and work itself. So, if the author is well known as an expert or a reputable journalist, then the source is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. "I would expect much more criticism or analysis". Of course not. The subject is barely notable to create a WP page about him; there are just a few sources. In fact it was David Horowitz who advertised Grover Furr. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Endorsement Primacy

Right now the article includes in the second paragraph of the lead that "Furr, who has praised revisionist historians such as J. Arch Getty on the Soviet Union and scholars such as R. W. Davies, Mark Tauger, Stephen G. Wheatcroft on the Holodomor genocide question, holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies".

Is Furr's endorsement of these revisionist historians worth mentioning in the lead? It seems to create a false equivalence between Furr's pseudohistory and legitimate academic revisionist historians.80.111.17.237 (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we some more comments on this? I don't think this should be removed entirely. Perhaps it can be reworded if something is misleading vis a vis who is fringe and who is not. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Its important to distinguish between charlatans/swindlers like Furr and actual respected academic historians like Getty or Davies.80.111.165.40 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there are sufficient references to make that distinction. It's worth mentioning his key work or controversies in the lede, but I think who he praises should be moved to another section. 73.223.131.178 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I made this edit. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)