Talk:Eric Foner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.


"Unnamed critics" are repeatedly referenced in this article. Any criticism should be specifically attributed and sourced. Cite your sources. -Willmcw 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Foner's marxist beliefs are universally acknowledged among anybody who knows anything about him. His defenders, some of them marxists themselves, are proud of this fact. If you don't know basic factual information about a person you should not be trying to author an encyclopedia article about him in the first place. Allow me also to recommend that you take a break from your needless deconstruction and editor stalking. You will find that he has been identified as a marxist since this article's inception. From the original version:
Professor Foner is considered one of today's most prominent scholars on the origins of the American Civil War and the American antebellum period. He is also a foremost intellect on racial, gender and other social issues. Professor Foner can be considered a neo-Marxist, and in his youth he was quite interested in Soviet politics (he especially admired Mikhail Gorbachev). He is often labeled by right-wing supporters as un-American for his original and unconventional works that challenge the ideal American history.

Rangerdude 02:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the cites. With those the original phrasing, "may be considered", is now supported. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Critics

  • Foner is criticized by political conservatives as un-American for his original and unconventional works that challenge traditional notions of American history.

Can we please see some of these politicial conservatives? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I search on "Foner un-american" and couldn't find any relevant citations. -Willmcw 21:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Considering that this description, save my change of "right wing" to the more NPOV "conservative," predates any edit I've made to this article[1], a more responsible editor would first pose the query and seek out sources himself before deleting what is most likely a valid piece of information for this article. A google search for the terms "Eric Foner" and "Un-American" minus "HUAC" reveals some 800 hits, so surely a responsible editor seeking to justify the deletion of seemingly accurate existing material would first attempt to ascertain that these did not apply. Rangerdude 22:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I looked and didn't find. Please find a source for one or more notable political conservatives who criticizes Foner as un-American for his original and unconventional works that challenge traditional notions of American history. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Since you edited the line, I assume you know who these critics are. Specifically, of the persons who make the criticism above, which ones are "conservative" rather than "right-wing"? Would a "responsible editor" make that change blindly? Cheers, -Willmcw 23:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
My edit was a minor NPOV change between two synonymous words, the latter being more neutral than the former. Using that change as a basis for removing the line, which you have now inadvertantly admitted to doing by attributing your action to my NPOV edit of the line, is not only irresponsible - it's borderline vandalism. If you have legitimate cause to doubt that conservatives criticize Foner's leftist politics please state it. Otherwise please refrain from deconstructing wikipedia. Rangerdude 04:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a very specific criticism. It doesn't say, "some conservatives probably think he's too leftist and revisionist." If it did we'd cut it out as unecyclopedic speculation. It's a specific charge of "un-americanism," which is a serious accusation. Such a charge should not made by the article without attribution. I'd like to see that attribution. When we find it, we can put add a sentence about it. Until then it's just unsourced criticism, which does not belong in this or any article. -Willmcw 04:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those critics. You are good at research. I added a description of Horowitz's criticism and dropped the inaccurate generalization. Much better now. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:14, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

It took all of 2 minutes on a simple google search of "Eric Foner" "unamerican" and -"HUAC," (hint, hint) one being the 2nd and the other being the 4th hit. As I noted previously, any responsible editor would have attempted the same before deleting long-standing and accurate material from an article. The alternative gives a very strong suggestion that an editor is seeking to remove material on a political subject from wikipedia for reasons other than the mission of bettering its content. Rangerdude 06:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Communist

What do we mean when we call Foner a "Communist"? Is he a member of the Communist Party? It is n't mentioned in the article. His use of certain Marxist concepts in scholarship does not seem sufficient evidence, nor do his uncle's ties to the CP. Any explanation? Thanks. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 07:10 (UTC)

Per the dozens of other names in the communist category, it seems to encompass anybody of a communist political philosophy or persuasion. Foner is openly marxist, and marxism is a subcategory under wikipedia's communist category thus the categorization of him is appropriate. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
Using Marxist concepts does not make one a Communist. At most it makes one a Marxist. Unless there is a source for Foners' membership in the Communist Party, or similar manifestation, the categorization does not belong. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 07:26 (UTC)
Marxism is by its very definition a school within communist thought, thus a marxist is also necessarily a communist. And that simple factual observation has nothing to do with "sources." Rangerdude 5 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)
Factual observations are original research. We have a category for "Marxist historians", which describes Foner well, so I moved him there. Note that it is not a subcategory of Communism. Cheers, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 08:28 (UTC)
I agree with Willmcw. An historian or an economist may draw upon Marxist analysis without necessarily being a card-carrying member of the CP. Given that "communist" is a for many Westerners a highly perjorative term, I prefer to use it only when the individual describes him/herself in this way, such as Pablo Picasso. -- Viajero | Talk 5 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism Section

  • Foner's political philosophy, which often forms the basis of his historiographical work, may be considered neo-Marxist. In his youth Eric was interested in Soviet politics and became an admirer of several political icons on the left, among them Mikhail Gorbachev and Paul Robeson. His political views have given rise to his nickname "Eric the Red" among Columbia students.

What are our sources for these assertions? Thakns, -Willmcw 04:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources Needed

Hi Rangerdude. Thank you for your kind email. I tried to write you back directly, but I see you have blocked incoming messages. I am sorry about that. In any event, thank you for your helpful suggestions. I will learn to use the tags you suggested. In the meantime, I hope we can reach agreement on the few items on which we seem to disagree. These appear to be:

Neo-Marxist. The cited Radosh article does maintain that Foner is a neo-Marxist, but it seems a big stretch to leap from one person's characterization to an encyclopedia's definitive claim. As I wrote in my edit, the fact that Foner is past President of two of the country's leading historical trade associations and has done extensive work for Disney and the National Parks Service, not to mention his heaps of awards and textbook, suggests that his political views are mainstream. At a bare minimum, there is a substantial difference of opinion. Therefore, in interest of a neutral point of view, I suggest the characterization be removed.

Soviet Politics. Please provide specific verifiable evidence for this claim. Simply to say that a member of Foner's family was a communist, and therefore he was interested in Soviet politics does not constitute verifiability as defined by Wikipedia.

Gorbachev/Robson. Same comments. If you have a source, please cite it specifically, by URL if possible, so we can discuss it together and evaluate whether it meets Wikipedia standards. Even the piece on DiscoverTheNetworks, for example (which I would not consider a "credible source" as defined by Wikipedia) does not say that Foner was interested in Soviet politics in his youth, nor does it say that he was an "early admirer" of Gorbachev and Robson. All that is there is his quotation of Robson's definition of patriotism at the Columbia rally.

Eric the Red. Same observation, except that here I can't find any mention at all of the appellation in the links at the bottom.

Confederate flag. First, in the cited piece Foner does not '[write] approvingly of removing Confederate flags from public display." He takes no position on removing the flag. What he does do is put the debate in historical context. He says "One hopes that when the flag comes down ..." not that he hopes the flag will come down. Second, Foner is not a columnist for the Nation. He writes occasional articles for them and, as noted above, is on their Board.

In sum, with respect, I suggest that this first paragraph should be removed since the items it contains are not verifiable and are therefore out of place in an encyclopedia. We have not stinted in any way to describe the arguments of, and link to, Foner's critics.

Here are the sources for my additions to the Criticism section:

Mainstream opinion is effusive in its praise for Foner. "Eric Foner is one of the most prolific, creative, and influential American historians of the past 20 years," says the Washington Post. Review printed in The Story of American Freedom. 1998: W.W. Norton & Company. Review page.

His work is "brilliant, important" says the Los Angeles Times. Review of The Story of American Freedom. 1998: W.W. Norton & Company. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0393319628/ref=dp_proddesc_0/104-6639761-6788747?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846

Presidential advisor Karl Rove has described Foner as one of his favorite authors. http://bnfp.org/neighborhood/Lemann_Rove_NYM.htm

Journalist Nat Hentoff called his Story of American Freedom "an indispensable book that should be read in every school in the land." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3812/is_200003/ai_n8891943. Review also printed in The Story of American Freedom. 1998: W.W. Norton & Company. Review page.

[edit] Discussion

Luath - Thanks for using the talk page. The info on Robeson, Gorbachev etc. is on the Discover the Networks page and several other articles about Foner online, e.g. [2] Gorbachev entered the national scene in Soviet politics in the 1960's - coinciding with the exact period Foner was a young grad student. Foner also later did some visiting scholar under Gorbachev in the 1980's. Googling "eric the red" and "eric foner" together gives something in the range of 2000 hits. A quick look suggests most of them are conservative sites like freerepublic, which is to be expected, but the nickname is attached to his name. Your argument regarding Foner's marxist leanings is a non-sequitur, as being the president of a historian's group and having well known books to your name does not necessarily make somebody "mainstream" in their politics. Radicals from all sorts of political extremes write famous books all the time, and many of the ones in academia serve terms at the head of major scholarly organizations. In fact academia is notoriously liberal in its politics and many well known professors are very politically active (and Foner, along with people like Paul Krugman, Cornel West, and Alan Dershowitz, is among the best known politically active academics on the left). Nor have I seen a single source that disputes Foner being a leftist. From what I understand he's pretty open about it himself (i.e. writing for The Nation, attending liberal political events) and if you asked him what he thought of marxist political theory he's probably respond favorably. Given that, it is perfectly reasonable and factual to represent Foner's politics as leftist in an encyclopedia article about him. Rangerdude 06:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude - A pleasure to chat. I trust you saw my revised comments to you above. First, as discussed above, I do not consider DiscoverTheNetworks and its affiliate FrontPageMagazine "reputable or credible sources" as defined by Wikimedia. If that is the best we can do, I fear the assertion will not stand up. Please provide the "several other articles" so we can evaluate them. Moving on to the specific issues under discussion:
Gorbachev. The fact that Foner was a graduate student at the same time Gorbachev was starting his career does not mean that Foner was an "early supporter." Similarly, the fact that Foner was a U.S. government Fulbright professor in Moscow does not make him a supporter of Gorbachev.
Eric the Red. This kind of Google search does not constitute verifiability within the meaning of Wikipedia. Googling "eric foner" and "attila the hun" produces hundreds of hits as well, but that doesn't mean his students nicknamed him Eric the Hun.
Neo-Marxist. The issue is not whether sources dispute that he is a leftist. The issue is which "reputable or credible sources" affirmatively define him as a "neo-Marxist." In the absence of convincing evidence, we should remove this characterization. Indidentally, it also is irrelevant what he would say if we asked him in person, since Wikipedians are not allowed to do original research.
Following your advice, I am posting the paragraph under discussion here. If the items in it cannot be verified in accordance with Wikipedia policies, I suggest it be deleted:
Foner's political philosophy, which often forms the basis of his historiographical work, is often criticized for being neo-Marxist. Foner's liberal political leanings and activism form the basis for much of this criticism. Coming from a family of prominent communist political activists and labor union officials, Foner was interested in Soviet politics in his youth. He was an early admirer of several political icons on the left, among them Mikhail Gorbachev and Paul Robeson. His political views have given rise to his nickname "Eric the Red" among Columbia students. Foner has taken many liberal political stances on modern issues such as the Iraq war and writes political commentary articles for many publications. In his column for the liberal magazine The Nation, Foner wrote approvingly of removing Confederate flags from public display.[1]

Luath - Thanks for your note. Regarding your points:

1. FrontPageMag/Discover the Networks - It is true that these sources are political in nature, but that does not necessarily make them non-credible by wikipedia standards. Indeed, Wikipedia's citation standards contain a specific caveat permitting political sources when they are used to represent a position taken by that political source, and in the paragraph above the information is clearly presented as a criticism of Foner's politics by those who disagree with him. Furthermore, if you actually check the links on these sites you will see that they include direct quotations of Foner himself praising Robeson etc. So even if the source is highly partisan, several things it includes are documented matters of fact.

2. Eric the Red - while not every google hit is going to provide a match that shows the name being used in this context, a simple glance at them reveals that some of them do indeed do just that. IIRC one of the first hits was to Freerepublic - a well known conservative site. That in mind, I will agree to changing the sentence to "His political views have given rise to his nickname "Eric the Red" among conservative critics of his politics" instead of Columbia students.

3. Marxist - the sentence as currently phrased does not define Foner as neo-Marxist but rather says he "is often criticized for being neo-Marxist" - something that is sourced by the links to conservative critics who take issue with his politics (remember this is all under the criticisms section as well). Rangerdude 23:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude - Hi. I have edited this page to include sections to make our discussion easier to follow. I hope you find that is useful. I re-read your comments, and all the sources. I think perhaps we can reach agreement if I re-write the Criticism section to present the points you make as the views of some of Foner's political critics, rather than statements of verified fact. I will lead with the views of the mainstream press and commentators since I suppose, I hope, we can both agree those are more widely held, and then present the views of the critics you have included. Please take a look at my efforts and see what you think.

[edit] De Genova's Mogadishu Quotation

I cannot find anyone who misattributed de Genova's Mogadishu comment to Foner. Therefore, I am going to suggest that the entire "Misattributed" section be deleted. He presumably does not beat his wife either, but I don't think we need a "Misattributed Claim of Wife Beating" section.

[edit] Family Sources

Does anyone have a source supporting him being Namoi FG's brother. Some places are reporting him as her ex-husband. 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Naomi Foner Gyllenhaal is his first and ex wife, not his sister. I edited the article and provided a letter from Eric Foner correcting the Columbia Daily Spectator, which made the same error, as the source. Calindigo

[edit] POV

A user recently reverted my changes to his new material saying they were "POV edits with an ax to grind." They were mostly a cleanup and adding internal links. I recommend that others look through the history and see which version is less POV, as the article currently stands, David Horowitz is called an "extreme rightwing critic" and the war in Iraq is specifically "George W. Bush's Iraq war". --Cúchullain t/c 05:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Horowitz is an extreme rightwinger who makes ad hominem attacks so frequently that anyone outside his band of acoylytes can not take him seriously.

If GW Bush did not start the war in Iraq, who did?

This is a biographical page that is supposed to be about Eric Foner, a contemporary historian and former head of the American Historical Association. This article is short on biographical details -- and deficient even in the area of his book titles-- and long on ad hominem attacks against him. skywriter 05:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is undoubtedly skewed - an editor was adding as much negative material as possible. If you can improve it please do. -Will Beback 09:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

I noticed that several anonymous users blanked the bio section and introduced puerile errors into the text. I have reverted all of it back to

20:27, September 11, 2006 LeoO3 (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism)

While a few edits, including by me, are missed, it is better than what the little kids introduced. Skywriter 19:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect factual information

Kevin C. Murphy, one of his graduate students, praises Foner: "Beloved by undergraduates and reviled by right-wing ideologues, Columbia University's Eric Foner is arguably the world's foremost authority on the tumultuous period of American Reconstruction (1865-1877). Foner placed newly freed Africans-Americans at the center of the post-Civil War story and, in so doing, illustrated the brief moments of political and social possibility available for Southern blacks before the racial and economic discrimination of Jim Crow was enthroned throughout the 'New South.'" [13]

First, what is the point of having just some random graduate student's praise of Foner in here? Does this Kevin Murphy have anything that makes him more significant than another student who might criticize him?

Second, are the parentheses for Reconstruction part of Murphy's text or was it added in, because either way, the dates are wrong. Reconstruction started at least in 1863 with Lincoln's 10% plan and 1864's subsequent Wade-Davis bill. One could even argue that Reconstruction started in 1861 with the Sea Isles experiments off South Carolina. At any rate, either (a) the dates should be corrected or (b) it should be made more clear whether or not these dates are part of this Murphy's quote or was included by the editors of wikipedia. 66.10.167.1 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody pasted in the Murphy quote from Murphy's blog. The problemn with the entire article is that it says very little about Foner's ideas or scholarly contributions--it's mostly froth. It says zip about his major work on Freedom, on history of political values in GOP, in Tom Paine, etc, and does not say exactly why he's so important re Reconstruction. In all, a poor article about a major historian. Rjensen 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on all accounts. There needs to be some major reworking on this article. 66.10.167.1 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:66.10.167.1, You may agree "on all accounts" but your history at Wikipedia is less than sterling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:66.10.167.1 Skywriter 06:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norton and Ashcroft

One version of our text says:

  • Foner, in turn, has asked conservatives why they appeal to racism, questioning why modern conservatives such as Gale Norton and John Ashcroft continue to praise the Confederacy.[3]

Another version says:

  • Foner, in turn, has attacked conservative office holders for granting interviews to reporters for magazines that previously published articles favorable to the Confederacy.

The source says:

  • Two of President Bush's Cabinet nominees--Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft and the prospective Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton--are being asked to explain their praise of the Confederacy. In a 1996 speech to a conservative group, Norton likened her struggle to preserve states' rights to the Confederate rebellion, saying, "We lost too much" when the Union triumphed. Ashcroft, in a 1998 interview, lauded the magazine Southern Partisan for defending "patriots" like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and called on "traditionalists" to vindicate the Confederate cause against charges that it represented a "perverted agenda."

It appears to me that the subject is criticizing Ashcroft and Norton for praising Confederate issues, not for conducting interviews. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen has described the first version, which he deprecates as a paean. I fail to see that; it is a summary of what Foner actually says. I have restored it, without the words, "asked conservatives why they appeal to racism," which (while clearly implied) may downplay Foner's qualifying reservations at the end of the article. Rjensen may want to click on paean and see what it means; this isn't even a eulogy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A net search for rjensen or Richard Jensen, defender of, apologist for and writer of paean to Strom Thurmond [4], will turn up that he is both a Wiki editor and owner of a conservative list. On Wikipedia, rjensen often tries to hide that he is unabashedly right wing in political orientation under the guise of either "neutrality" or "scholarship". I believe his viewpoint should be included because Wikipedia is inclusive but that rjensen's actions in removing the work of other editors who represent opposing viewpoints should be firmly dealt with. Other Wiki editors need to bear in mind that when rjensen adds or edits copy, he adds the most conservative and often the most racially offensive references, text and photos he can find. This problem afflicts the entire discussion of Reconstruction after the Civil War and most articles that link to it where rjensen is very active. So there is an inbred bias in these articles that are fundamentally hostile to an honest assessment of the history of African American people and that are favorable to sources that have long been discredited by at least the last two generations of mainstream historians.

One of the most shocking abuses of Wikipedia editing by rjensen has occurred in the bio article on James Shepherd Pike in which rjensen all but erased the contributions, which were added, of Robert Franklin Durden, former chairman of the department of history at Duke University.

Why is dishonest scholarship, such as this, on Wikipedia?

Durden wrote the definitive biography of James Shepherd Pike and yet rjensen removed all references to Durden's work from the biographical article except the footnote, and one article available only by subscription.

On the cover of his book, Durden wrote that he was prompted to write his book James Shepherd Pike: Republicanism and the American Negro, 1850-1882 to answer this question: "how did James S. Pike come to write The Prostrate State: South Carolina under Negro Government?" "The book, published in 1873, is a firey indictment of Radical Reconstruction and the Negro's role therein; indeed it is the verbal equivalent of Thomas Nast's bitterly satiric cartoons of the period." Why is this important? To understand the way the history of Reconstruction was written, one must go back to Pike's work of fiction (that paraded as history) which influenced an entire generation of historians who subsequently influeneced the writing of textbooks in the United States for the first half of the 20th century. Durden examined the original manuscripts and detailed how Pike had made up his version of Reconstruction.

Richard Jensen's deletions of Durden's work is serious because, in a full-length book, which the subject deserved, Durden compared Pike's fictionarl account to original manuscripts.

Pike's fictions are the linchpin of many of the racist textbooks written about Reconstruction in the early 20th century, all now firmly rejected by mainstream historians, yet thse are the texts that rjensen quotes extensively from on Wikipedia.

So while it disgusts me to see what Richard Jensen is trying to do to the article on Eric Foner, seen in the article history on the the contemporary historian known most widely for overturning the viciously racist accounts of Reconstruction history, it is not surprising that Jensen did this. It is the reason for the distortions in a wide range of articles that link to the Reconstruction, articles that are more than mildly repulsive because they falsify the history of African Americans and the struggle for Civil Rights. The articles that rjensen dominates are unfair to all readers because they distort history in non-benign ways.

Aside from Foner's contributions, there is too much solid work done by entire recent generations of scholars on the facets of the history of Reconstruction and the civil rights movement for rjensen's versions to be taken seriously by serious scholars. He pushes a viewpoint long ago discarded on the dust heap of falsified history. It is a shame rjensen has the time, in retirement, to work these articles nonstop day and night. Others have countered the narrow and racially biased viewpoint of this Energizer Bunny that champions the Dunning School which is based very much on the fictions written by James Shepherd Pike but few of us have the leisure of time to fight rjensen's history of bigotry on Wikipedia in a sustained manner.

I will add that when I saw Richard Jensen's erasure of the contributions of Robert Franklin Durden, biographer of James Shepherd Pike, from this article on Pike, I greatly cut down on my contributions to Wikipedia in disgust.

Here's one of several examples from the history of that article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Shepherd_Pike&diff=61529346&oldid=61220384

Do not take my word for this. Get a copy of Durden's book on Pike and decide for yourself.

Skywriter 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To demonstrate that I am not 'whistling Dixie,' I will add that the dominant photo, the largest cartoon on Reconstruction is deeply offensive to African Americans and most everyone else. Now I can hear rjensen defending its use and its size (!) with the claim that Eric Foner found and used it first. My reply is that Foner put it in context. The Reconstruction article does not do that, and all things considered, this graphic is both hostile to, and does violence to the history of African American people and it is not reflective of the work of Eric Foner, Richard Nelson Current, Robert Durden, Leon Litwack or the many other giants of Reconstruction scholarship. This article and those that link to it are an embarrassment to Wikipedia and humiliating to African American people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Free-bur.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Free-bur.jpg&action=history

There were many graphics that Richard Jensen could have been chosen to be the centerpiece of the Reconstruction article. That Richard Jensen, owner and editor of the editor of Conservativenet, [5] chose and uploaded the most vile graphic he could find, tells volumes about the rjensen agenda.

Richard Jensen actually uploaded this piece of filth to a second article that linked to Reconstruction and I took it down.

Skywriter 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum for discussing problems with editors. You might consider presenting this material in an RfC instead. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Criticism on the Criticism

If people want to include a section on criticism that is fine. I think we might want to expand it to include more important criticism (both Foner's and others). This gives people a better understanding/sense of Mr. Foner's beliefs (political and scholastic). I don't want to change the article without testing the waters because I know a lot of people have been working on and discussing this to try and make improvements. Also, his views are somewhat polarizing politically and I don't want to be accused of partisanship and bias. Some suggested criticism to add include: Foner's criticism of Ronald Radosh's book about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg upheld the standards of historical scholarship (it was a significant critique and drew the attention of Ann Coulter years later). Also, Foner has been criticized sharply for writing in the London Review of Books days after the 9/11 attacks, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." [6]Just some suggestions because I know that these are some of the more significant critiques by Foner and of Foner. Jefflerm 05:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that the existing section works just fine -- it makes the point that some conservatives disagree with Foner's politics. I don't see how adding anything by Ann Coulter will make this a better article. What you are proposing will most assuredly result in a major expansion of a section that is unrelated to the main purpose of the article -- the biography of a major American historian. As soon as you add Ann Coulter's opinion, that opens up the article to others' opinions of why nothing Ann Coulter says should be taken seriously. As far as the 9/11 attack quote, most of the criticism I have seen of that don't go beyond reactions to the single sentence -- fine for thirty second political adds but totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.
Contrary to your claim, the most "significant critiques by Foner and of Foner" are related to his historical works, not his political views. If you have something to contribute concerning his works and reviews relating to antebellum America, the Civil War, and Reconstruction then maybe it has a place in the article. There are historians who have accomplished very little in the academic field and who are known primarily or exclusively because of their political works (sometimes disguised as actual history)-- Foner is not one of those historians. Tom (North Shoreman) 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Jefflerm offers no evidence (citation) to support that "Foner has been criticized sharply for writing in the London Review of Books..." and so that can be safely ignored. Whatever spews from Coulter's mouth is designed to bring publicity to herself. She is not a historian or an academic and is herself grossly controversial, particularly when she calls for the assassination of people with whom she disagrees.Skywriter 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link for the criticism. [7] Sorry I didn't include that, I linked in the wrong link. As for the thing about Coulter, the point was that Foner had made a critique that shot down a controversial, anti-communist book written by Radosh. Coulter later went on a ridiculous diatribe about it. I included the Coulter reference because I thought some of you might have remebered when she talked about it and it would refresh your memory. It has nothing to do with Coulter and I regret bringing her name up because nobody remembered her comments anyway. Sorry. His critique on Radosh's book is significant and I'm searching for the exact article right now. I can find snippets of it, but I will link it in when I find all of it because it really is some of Foner's best work. Jefflerm 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My intention was not to stir the pot here, but I found it odd that the criticism section included a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with, as Tom said, "his historical works". In particular, I am talking about the critiques of David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and Bernard Goldberg. These are completely unrelated to his historical/academic works. Also, the part about Ashcroft and Norton is unrelated to his historical works. That is why I thought we should change the section. Either add more or delete anything that isn't directly related to his academic work. Some of Foner's articles after 9/11 gained him some attention, and that is when I began to read him. However, some of these articles came under sharp criticism from right-wingers and families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. We don't necessarily have to use the one in the London Review of Books but I thought we should include something on that since he was an important voice during that time. Just a suggestion because the current criticism page does not all pretain to his books and other academic/scholarly work. Jefflerm 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)