Talk:Harry Binswanger

Untitled

I reverted this edit. The alleged rule that one should NEVER edit one's own biography is far too extreme. The sort of guidelines found in places like Wikipedia:Manual of Style are not absolute. Often failure to adhere to them will lead novices into bad mistakes; more experienced editors can judge when they are looking at an unusual case where they should be deviated from. I like Paul Halmos's advice that you should not break the rules until after you find out what they are. As applied to things like Wikipedia's conventions, I take that to mean you should follow the guidelines at least until you understand the reasons for them, and then of course you will almost always follow them thereafter because you understand the reasons for them.

Now look at this particular edit: Binswanger does not wish to claim to have taught "courses" at Duke University when he was there for only one day, and he doesn't want to call his newsletter a "journal". "Journal" often implies a scholarly journal to which authors submit articles that get peer-reviewed and (often severely) screened by expert editors; I surmise that Binswanger is trying not to claim credit for more than what he does. And as for clear factual errors (e.g. this article once said incorrectly that Binswanger was born in Manhattan) I don't think the guideline on editing one's own biography ever attempted to forbid correcting that sort of thing. Michael Hardy 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A large portion of Binswanger's article was false, so he corrected it. It is not as if he is editing his own article to promote himself. Endlessmike 888 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

-oOo-

A reference containing a copy of Mr. Binswanger's HBL "quote of the day" about Snowden's NSA revelations is  Harry Binswanger and the Surveillance State  - Onlinetexts (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First edition?

Of Ayn Rand's ITOE, the article says:

the first edition was published in 1979

It is true that the first edition published by a commercial publishing company, whose publications appear in Books in Print and the like, appeared at (about?) that time, but it was previously published as a book by NBI Press in about 1967, and I think copies of that printing can still be found in some libraries. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions

The recent addition to this page looks very problematic. It appears to have a non-neutral tone and use weasel words. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The changes were obviously not neutral at all, so I've reverted them. --RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion

This page is of very little value, and appeared to be mostly self-promotion. Information about his academic activities were only supported by a link to Binswanger's own (self-promotional) website. They should only be reinstated if better sources can be found. Especially ridiculous pieces of self promotion like "has spoken at more than 30 universities..." and the comments about being a columnist for forbes and a "senior contributor" to realclearmarkets. He should not be described as a philosopher, as he has no independent academic career as such; he is only known, and been active, as an objectivist commentator and author. "Appointments" at unaccredited organisations such as ARI do not count as academic positions. The comment connecting Binswanger's thesis with Nagel ought to be verified, because in the context of all the other overstatement on this page it could easily be untrue. This page should be brought back to some level of objectivity and balance, or it should be deleted. Vectronn (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there were some promotional elements -- not surprising given that "HBinswanger" (presumably the subject himself) appears several times in the contribution history. However, his work teaching philosophy at various colleges seems to be verifiable, so I have restored that with updated details based on the sources I found, along with the description of him as a "philosopher". I also tried to give the biography some sense of chronology. RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The only references I can find are from his own friends or coworkers (as the ones cited; but some don't even contain what it is supposed to reference). There are no official documents (at least none I can find) about these. 2.108.109.144 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

I've added NPOV tag, as this article largely reads like an advertisement for the person. He appears to have edited significant portions of the page himself, and it contains statements like "He was a close friend of Ayn Rand", which are not entirely supported by the sources. "He has taught philosophy at CUNY's Hunter College, Hofstra University, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, The New School for Social Research, and the University of Texas, Austin.[1][2]" is a stretch and misleading way to say "he was invited by a conservative student union and spoke on these universities", I'd say. 2.108.109.144 (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've done a pass of editing to remove language that seems slanted ("close" friend, "instrumental" in creating a group, etc.). Is there other specific content that you think is biased? (You can edit these things yourself, by the way.) The content about his teaching positions is supported with two third-party sources, which I found after a previous editor objected to/removed similar material. Do you have any reliable sources to back up your suggestion that these were merely student group lectures, or is that just speculation? --RL0919 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Quotes edit

I think that quotes I recently added and then re-added after a revision should stay. There is not good reason to not include them. They are accurate, cited and also are evident in a source (Debate with Hitchens) that already appears and is talked about on the page. Give me one good reason they should be reverted. Otherwise I'm going to call this an edit war and we can go the distance!

Maearacauaray (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think the first two quotes you've added inform Dr. Binswanger's perspective on colonization and are worthy of inclusion. While I would have liked these quotes placed into the broader context of his full statement during the debate, I see no reason to press the issue.

However, any quotes used in a biographical article should stand on their own and make clear an individual's position. I removed your third quote because you cut off his statement mid-sentence and thereby did not provide the full context of the quote. In addition, the quote is a sentence fragment as written: "Oil under the feet of people who do not know what property is, who don't have a civilised society, who are nomads or dictatorships [sic], is not the property of their little king." If you'd like to include this quote under the views section, I request that you include the full sentence.

I hope that this explanation demonstrates that I did not make these edits because I'm "biased" or because I think these statements reflect badly on Dr. Binswanger. My only purpose, as with any edit I make on Wikipedia, is to add clarity and correct mistakes. Brandon Lisi (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your point that the sentence your removed (the third quote) is not very intelligible. I would disagree that I didn't include the entire sentence but accept that it doesn't flow in the context of being quoted in this biography paragraph. Thank you for accepting the inclusion of those quotes. I think they is useful information for people who would like to know (without listening to the entire recording) about what points the Dr brought up in the debate. I apologise for calling you biased, I just saw that it had been reverted and that you are a fan of atlas shrugged. I put two and two together and came up with biased! :) hope there is no hard feelings. Maearacauaray (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)