Talk:Henry Giroux

Second Template

There is a template under his biographical template imported from Critical Pedagogy. This doesn't conform to other pages and makes it appear as if the content of the template is the work of Giroux. I'm going to delete it and change the first template to infobox:academic, if there are no objections.Withoutdistinction (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I'm not actually interested in this guy enough to make the revisions, but the entire bio section is a direct copyvio from the main page of www.henryagiroux.com. Someone might want to do something about that. InsaneNewman 08:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the offending paragraph. If someone wants to rewrite it so it's not a copy vio, please feel free to do so. InsaneNewman 17:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some cuts to make the entry slightly less of a vanity piece, but its future is not promising. This is the sort of fluff that gives wikipedia a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.168.144 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro says that Giroux was a high school teacher for nine years, the bio says six. Which is it? VTava--118.93.80.8 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this self-promoter written up here?

Is Wikipedia meant to play host to the self-composed biography of every tenured professor in the United States of America? They all have hats full of the club awards that are necessary for their employment.

Surely university professors in general do not, merely by virtue of holding professorships, merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. One must view academic publications in a different light than works of genuine authorship.

As I see it, professors, unless of indisputably historical stature or notoriety, belong only in the more ephemeral listings where we find members of the judiciary, ordinary congressmen, and the holders of the more minor world records.

The only thing in favor of Giroux's being written up here is the fact that the Web periodical Truthout has taken to publishing his words as if they were those of Christ. This may constitute notoriety. After all, both Harvey Mansfield and Ward Churchill are (for different reasons) well enough known outside academia to merit articles.

For other examples of professorial puffery in Wikipedia, see the entries for Gregory G. Colomb or Austin Quigley. There are no doubt many more. It's a pity that professors in general, even when they can't or won't write their own articles, invariably have sycophants who are happy to indulge in a little flattery if it will help them find jobs. --Kalosar (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is POV really a concern for Wikipedia?

Consider, for example, the sentence, "He is also an advocate of radical democracy, vigorously opposing the anti-democratic tendencies of neoliberalism, militarism, imperialism, religious fundamentalism, and the ongoing attacks against the social state, the social wage, youth, the poor, and public and higher education."

I mean, really, whether of not one agrees that those not of Doctor Giroux's political bent are attacking the whole social order, is this not exactly what is meant by POV? And how is it that this has not been challenged by anyone in 7 years? Tejanoviejo (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe an unreferenced statement in any article is POV, feel free to change it. With over a million articles, some are not read closely by experienced editors for years. In this specific case, I agree that the wording is non-neutral, and that it should be reworded or removed.Dialectric (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)