Talk:Howard Zinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Howard Zinn article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Another Opinion

At my school I have to read Zinn's A People's History of the United States. I can tell you that he is one of the most biased writers for history I have ever read. In his book, ideas of communism constantly keep recurring. Examples: "And how could people truly have equal rights, with stark differences in wealth?" (Zinn 73). I'll add more pro-communist quotes when I get to them (I'm only on chapter 8). His chapters on the cold war are mis-cited, inaccurate, and he makes assumptions that aren't true. Again, I will add quotes as I get to them. This is an opinion and I will provide evidence to support my claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.125.181 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of A People's History is to get you to consider viewpoints different from the standard textbooks. There is no great mystery that Zinn's politics are left-of-center, but many people accept as "fact" the interpretations churned out by mainstream textbooks. I think you would be better served by tearing apart the standard books, unless of course you are happier with writing that mirrors your political philosophies. In that case, drink the Kool-Aid and move along, folks. Nothing here to see.  :-} Historymike (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

This guy is probably the pre-eminent American historian of the left, Barbara Tuchman probably being pre-eminent on the right. A review of A People's History at least probably belongs in the Wikipedia.

This guy fails to talk about Amerindians (less than two pages in the book) and has the nerve to call women the "immediately opressed" I'm sorry there was never a bounty out on white womens skins there has been on Amerindians.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia on that basis alone -- i.e., does anyone else share it? As it happens, you're wrong on the facts. The first chapter of People's History, ("Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress") is about horrors Columbus perpetrated on the Indians and the omission of that information from standard American histories. And he calls women the "intimately oppressed" (in discussing the 19th century cult of domesticity). Radicalsubversiv 04:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the term "underground bestseller" -- going to have a hard time finding it defined anywhere, but the point is that the book sold huge numbers of copies without any significant publicity or fanfare. It is now taught in some schools because it became so popular and influential, not the other way around. Radicalsubversiv 05:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You make a good point on keeping my opinions off the page its self but is it ok to talk about the pages content here? PS I'll look for my copy to verify what I remember if I'm wrong I owe you an apology.

Talk pages generally exist for the purpose of discussing changes / reaching agreement as to the article, rather than its subject matter. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Wikiquette.) One point I should have made more clearly above is that it is appropriate to include criticism of Zinn in the article if it is not merely your personal opinion, and is presented as such (i.e. "Zinn's critics, such as Notable Author, say ..."); if you're interested, that would be valuable content to add. Radicalsubversiv 21:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The "Criticism" section of this article contains precisely one sentence of criticism. But it contains multiple sentences criticizing the criticism. I hardly think this suffices as a neutral or balanced treatment. Why not just erase the "Criticism" section altogether and admit that this article is a one-sided encomium.


I have just reverted the addition of this paragraph to the article:

Critics point out that Zinn has yet to turn a critical eye to China, North Korea, or Cuba. His zeal for destroying the image of a country seems to be limited to America. This is ironic since it is one of the few countries on earth where he could write such things without fearing for his life.

We're not in the business of allowing anyone with a beef to write a weasel-worded original criticism. This one in particular makes very little sense, as almost any historian you'll encounter has a specific geographic focus to their work -- Zinn is likely unqualified to write A People's History of China. In addition, the statements about him having a "zeal for destroying" and "one of the few countries on earth" are both POV and inaccurate. RadicalSubversiv E 01:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How can the fact that he has yet to turn a critical eye on any other nation be stated as a NPOV?

(The above comment was posted by 132.241.245.49, the author of the paragraph in question.)
The only NPOV element of your paragraph is that Zinn's work focuses almost exclusively on the United States, which the article already makes clear. Whether you approve of that is completely immaterial. Also, your addition of a sarcastic editorial comment into the lead is completely inappropriate and borders on vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and stop using this article as a platform for your own criticisms of Zinn. RadicalSubversiv E 01:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How can I make my observation that he hasn't critized any country other than America NPOV?

You can't. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your own personal observations. Wikipedia:No original research. If you'd like to research notable criticism of Zinn (preferably by fellow historians), that would be a welcome addition to the article. Also, please stop creating new sections for each of your comments, see Wikipedia:Talk pages for how we organize discussion. RadicalSubversiv E 02:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

can we call in a third party on this? I fear neither of us can be neutral on Zinn.

BTW I'm still trying to figure out how to work wikipedia.

There's a number of good editors who've worked on this article, so hopefully some of them will appear to comment shortly. If not, we can post an RFC. I think you'll quickly find a consensus that your additions are unacceptable. For helpful info and links on how to use Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. RadicalSubversiv E 02:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I side with Radicalsubversiv on this one. The observation, really a argument or criticism, would need a citation (Wikipedia:Cite sources), and I would then want it to be refuted by another source. The argument is tenous: "Zinn shouldn't talk this way because he can." Zinn lives in the US, and, as with myself, probably cares more about the state of that nation than others. Those who make this observation should still side with Zinn's efforts to perfect the US. If not, they should demand that all do-gooders move to the country which is the worst off at the time, a determination that would be difficult. To quote Flannery O'Connor: "One person can't get everything right." Hyacinth 02:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although Howard Zinn has had plenty of criticism of his work, the one that was added to this article is almost certainly not anywhere near the top of the list. As with any controversial issue or individual, there probably should be short Criticism section added, but the information should be from reputable sources. Have any conservative journals, for example, written an articles on Howard Zinn or done a review of his "A People's History of the United States"? BTW: There is one link to a critical article by frontpagemag.com in the External links section. BlankVerse 08:47, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Radicalsubversiv. Aside from anything else, do we have to add to articles on specialists in Chinese politics that they don't write about Poland, or to articles on primatologists that they ignore cetaceans? The criticism is also PoV (and very poorly argued). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly is a book with a preface by Noam Chomsky listed under the "criticism" section? This is sort of like listing Bill O'Reilly under "criticism" for Rush Limbaugh. 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think

an RFC would be good

BTW lets try not to make this personal and talk down to each other.

Please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 02:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm no Zinn fan, but I don't think this criticism belongs in the article unless it can be attributed to some well-known critics. I do want to thank you for staying cool and using the talk page. Rhobite 07:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marxist historian?

This article describes Zinn as a marxist historian, but having read that page, it doesn't seem to fit Zinn. According to the page, Marxist historians are generally teleological, they believe in the centrality of social class and economic constraints in determining historical outcomes. I see none of that in evidence in the two books of Zinn's which I've read: People's History, and SNCC. Perhaps social history or history from below. Does Zinn classify himself as a marxist historian? Do others? Who? DanKeshet 23:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Zinn has called himself an anarchist. I guess someone would call him a "marxist" if they equated any speech of class struggle, etc. as purely marxist domain. --Tothebarricades.tk 00:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He's an historian. I agree that there's no sign that he's Marxist, but I'm not clear what giving him any political label achieves that isn't PoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Zinn is certainly not a 'marxist' historian, if he's anything, hes an anarcho-syndicalist. But theres bound to be much debate about which label to give him so it would probibily be best to just call him a 'liberal' or 'leftist' historian.

The issue here isn't Zinn's personal political ideology, but the approach to history he takes, which I think can fairly be classified as Marxist historiography. That having been said, if someone wanted to reword so as to link to History from below, I'd okay with that too. RadicalSubversiv E 00:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But how do you respond to DanKeshet's argument? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, I think the article is too limited in its definition and is speaking really only of history as practiced by members of orthodox Marixst parties, as opposed to the broader influence of Marx's theory of history on the academy. (I don't really know enough about the matter to fix it myself.) That having been said, the language I added does qualify the matter with "perhaps". RadicalSubversiv E 11:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: "As a practitioner of history from below, or perhaps even Marxist historiography,..." Comment: As this characterization lacks documentation, is "perhaps" imprecise, and veers toward pigeon-holing that does not ring wholly true in its completeness, it could use an edit to reflect more fully the diversity of his outlook, which is explained more fully in the linked article: Borrowing ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism and social democracy, Zinn describes his political philosophy in ways that can not be easily pigeon-holed. [1] If anyone disagrees, I would appreciate seeing your remarks in this forum. Cheers! Skywriter 01:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zinns historical perspective could accurately be described as anarchist. In addition, he calles himself an anarchist. Therefore, it should say anarchist. Cews 13:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the citation, Cews, where Zinn says "I am an anarchist." In the absence of a citation, the earlier version is more correct as it reflects that his outlook is both Marxist and anarchist. The evidence is that he wrote plays about both Marx and Emma Goldman, an anarchist, both of whom have influenced him. It should revert to this: Howard Zinn' (born August 24, 1922) is a U.S. historian and political scientist, whose philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy. skywriter 14:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization."[2] 70.145.240.170 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but he doesn't say anything in this quote about Marxism, and for many people anarchism and Marxism are not at all incompatible (in fact, they may rely on each other). I'm reverting your removal of the categories. Pinkville (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The presentation i correct, because it refers to his methode more than his conviction. his metod among other also includes marxism. on the other hand he can be an anarchist as well as beeing inspired by marxist theory ;)

[edit] Did Zinn lie or make an error when he said this?

“George Washington was the richest man in America.”

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 04:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A citation and some context would help. Where is this from? What was he talking about? DanKeshet 01:21, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmm if the link at the end of this message is true Zinn did somthing wrong but I'm not sure what to call it.

http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Zinn%20Rev.htm

signed CD

And what's the other half of the citation? Who was wealthier? Virtually ever resource on Washington describes him as among the wealthiest men in the colonies, or the wealthiest man in Virginia, but I haven't found an exact list of wealth (though, as most of Washington's wealth was in land holdings, such as list is pretty much guesswork or hindsight anyway). More importantly, I don't understand how this has an effect on the encyclopedia article. The gist of what Zinn was saying was that the Founding Fathers were from the upper class. I'm not sure whether he's totally correct or not, but if we think there was somebody wealthier than Washington, what are we going to say, "Zinn, in accurately describing the Founding Fathers as upper class, slightly misrepresented George Washington's relative wealth?" DanKeshet 21:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

How about some people calm down and realize that Zinn quoted a possibly inaccurate source in an attempt to further his goals.

signed. CD

Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please do not personally address headings to people on talk pages. Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles, not their contributors. Headings on article talk pages should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. If you need to reach another user please go to their user talk page. Thanks. Hyacinth 06:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thank you for the reminder Hyacinth I forgot my manners.

No worries, though thank you both anyways. CD: Do you have a way you think the article could be improved? DanKeshet 05:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's just what I'd like I don't think some people will let it happen

I would like to have an area inwhich falsehoods aserted in Zinn's books are shown.

signed CD 2/28/2005

You're right, people aren't likely to let that happen, because it runs completely counter to our policies, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research. What the article can include is a section reporting (in summary) on already-published criticisms that have been made of Zinn's work. If Zinn's work is as inaccurate as you claim, you should have no problem finding such material. RadicalSubversiv E 06:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too hard. I know I've litteraly laughed out loud of some of his nonsense. Some of it is factual errors, some is simply gross oversimplification in order to distort facts to suit his purposes, either way I can't consider him a serious historian. Oh, I know most of you do because you agree with his politics, which is why he's gotten such a pass in general. Doesn't change the fact that he's amusingly incorrect in most respects, though.

"...either way I can't consider him a serious historian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.201 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2006

Oh well, then. I guess there's nothing anyone can say to that! (And an unsigned comment as well!) Pinkville 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

what is unneutral about showing clear fallshoods asserted in a history book?

If someone else has asserted that they are false, or that they are notable falsehoods that have become controversial, they may be included. Otherwise, it's original research not fit for a tertiary source. --Tothebarricades.tk 01:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This guy is probably the pre-eminent American historian of the left, Barbara Tuchman probably being pre-eminent on the right. A review of A People's History at least probably belongs in the Wikipedia.

This guy fails to talk about Amerindians (less than two pages in the book) and has the nerve to call women the "immediately opressed" I'm sorry there was never a bounty out on white womens skins there has been on Amerindians.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia on that basis alone -- i.e., does anyone else share it? As it happens, you're wrong on the facts. The first chapter of People's History, ("Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress") is about horrors Columbus perpetrated on the Indians and the omission of that information from standard American histories. And he calls women the "intimately oppressed" (in discussing the 19th century cult of domesticity). Radicalsubversiv 04:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On the term "underground bestseller" -- going to have a hard time finding it defined anywhere, but the point is that the book sold huge numbers of copies without any significant publicity or fanfare. It is now taught in some schools because it became so popular and influential, not the other way around. Radicalsubversiv 05:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You make a good point on keeping my opinions off the page its self but is it ok to talk about the pages content here? PS I'll look for my copy to verify what I remember if I'm wrong I owe you an apology.

Talk pages generally exist for the purpose of discussing changes / reaching agreement as to the article, rather than its subject matter. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. (You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Wikiquette.) One point I should have made more clearly above is that it is appropriate to include criticism of Zinn in the article if it is not merely your personal opinion, and is presented as such (i.e. "Zinn's critics, such as Notable Author, say ..."); if you're interested, that would be valuable content to add. Radicalsubversiv 21:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] raised vs. reared

This isn't worth fighting over, but "raised" is in far wider usage, and "reared" often seems to connote raising animals For example, 10,800 vs 458,000 google hits for "I was reared" vs. "I was raised". I suspect I am not the only reader who will find the use of "reared" somewhat jarring. RadicalSubversiv E 17:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Works great, should've thought of it myself. RadicalSubversiv E 19:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Technically, animals and grain are raised and humans are reared. "Brought up" beats having someone come behind me three times incorrectly to change "reared" to "raised." Skywriter 20:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't say more, I suppose, but it's simply not the case, 'technically' or otherwise, that 'raise' is used only for animals and grain, nor that 'rear' isn't used for animals. It may be that in certain variants of English this is the case (though a fairly thorough search found no trace of this), but both verbs are commonly used for all these objects.
Examples from around the world of 'raise' used for human children:
Examples of 'rear' used for animals:
Examples of 'rear' used for human children (this is admittedly much rarer, on a Google search, at least):
And from the The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993): “Today Americans raise, rear, or bring up children, even though a good many Standard-speaking Americans can still recite the old saying: The British raise plants and animals and rear children, but Americans raise all three. Bring up is the peculiarly American locution, but all three terms can be considered interchangeable in Standard American English.” (It's wrong about 'bring up' bening peculiarly American, though.)
It's a very good idea when editing Wikipedia not to be too dogmatic about language use unless, first, you are expert in the subject, and even then, secondly, you've checked your facts. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • My apologies. I retire from the fray, bruised and bleeding from your overwhelmingly convincing exposition. But if I ever meet my fifth grade teacher again, I'm going to have a word with her. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hello! I hadn't even known that you were in the fray. Yes, teachers have a lot to answer for (actually, here in the U.K. they seem to have stopped teaching pupils how to write English at all, so at least they're not teaching them wrongly I suppose). I've recently had a spate of visiting U.S. undergraduates typing the footnote numbers for quotations inside the quotation marks; they all say that that's what they were taught at school (and they come many different places, from Ohio to Georgia, from New York to North Carolina). When I was at Primary School (some forty years ago) I found myself in hot water for correcting my teacher's pronunciation of 'Boadicea'; I was right, he was wrong — but it was a deeply silly (and ultimately painful) mistakefor me to make. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

++Fowler's Modern English Usage, 3rd edition, p. 650, 2nd column: "raise, rear (verbs) The first is esp. common to AmE of the cultivation of plants (to raise corn) the breeding and rearing of livestock (ro raise cattle), and bring up of children (to bring up a family of four). In BrE, raise is sometimes used in all three senses, but the more usual terms are to cultivate or to grow (plants), to rear (animals) and to bring up (children)."

And so, a tip 'o the hat to Mel Etitis for suggesting the on- point "bring up/brought up" variation. Skywriter 00:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zinn's degrees

Zinn himself says that his Ph.d. is in history. Someone keeps changing it to "political science" citing a World Book Enclyclopedia entry. Can someone believe that the World encyclopedia is wrong? Skywriter 20:56, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That someone is me, and I've changed it precisely once. My source is not the World Book, but the Encyclopedia of World Biography, which from everything I know is a scholarly and reputable source. http://www.bookrags.com/biography/howard-zinn/ also states his degrees were in poli sci. Moreover, his position at Boston University was Professor of Political Science; so far as I know it would be rather unprecedented for someone without a degree in political science to be given tenure in that field at a major university. RadicalSubversiv E 21:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It maybe scholarly and it maybe reputable but it is wrong. I just checked with Columbia University alumni federation and they replied that their records show Zinn's graduate degrees are in history. In reply, I've asked if that fact is shown anywhere online (in order for this not to be "original research") and do not yet have an answer. However, Zinn himself has said his degrees are in history. I will find the cite for that-- I believe it is in the conversations at UC Berkeley. He cited it as an anomaly that he was the resident historian in the poly sci department at BU. Zinn has always referred to himself as a historian, not as a political scientist. Murray Levin, who was his friend and colleague in the same department at BU, was a political scientist. Skywriter 21:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While this is "original research," and so is wiki-disqualified, it gets to the heart of the matter. Zinn is an historian. And while you have the opinion that it is "rather unprecedented" for BU to have hired a historian in the poly science department, fact is, they did. And, Zinn himself said they did. Skywriter 22:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message history to Columbia alumni federation:

I need to kow what field Howard Zinn earned his Ph.D in 1958. It was either History or Poltiical Science. How can I find out which it was? His thesis was on LaGuardia as a congressman.

From: Jessie Mygatt <jsm9@columbia.edu> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:33:05 -0500 Subject: RE: Question about Columbia alum Howard Zinn

Our records show "History"

Jessie Mygatt

Columbia University University Alumni Relations 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 402 New York, NY 10115

212-870-2535 Fax 212-870-2417 jsm9@columbia.edu

From: Jessie Mygatt <jsm9@columbia.edu> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:49:17 -0500 Subject: RE: Question about Columbia alum Howard Zinn

No, not yet, there is no online directory as of this time.

Original Message-----

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:39 PM To: Jessie Mygatt Subject: Re: Question about Columbia alum Howard Zinn

Is there a place on the Web that can be routinely shown? Thanks, Jessie.

++I'd like to clear this up. If the statement from the Columbia University Alumni Federation is insufficient verification that Zinn's graduate degrees are in history, do you have a suggestion for fact-checking whether Zinn's graduate degrees are in political science or history? http://www.bookrags.com/biography/howard-zinn/ is not an authoritative source. I don't have a copy of Encyclopedia of World Biography but would be willing to write to the editors to ask if they are certain of that fact and to ask if it was fact-checked, if you can provide the address. What say you, Radicalsubversiv? Skywriter 00:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the detective work. I'm not certain that a staff person responding to e-mail inquiries at Columbia's Alumni department can be considered authoratitive, but it certainly makes clear that this needs further research. For now, I've adjusted the text to say that sources disagree. If someone can find a quote from You Can't Be Neutral, we could call that authoritative and add a footnote about conflicting sources.
However, you also changed the text to say that Zinn is a Professor Emeritus of History, when he himself states that his position there was in political science ([3], [4]), as do a number of other sources ([5], [6]). Your change to the introduction was also unacceptable; calling him "one of the most" articulate is completely POV (though I personally happen to agree with it). (Apologies, that edit was from an anonymous user.)
RadicalSubversiv E 00:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wrote and asked Zinn about his graduate degree. He replied: "My Ph.D. was in history with a minor in political science." Skywriter 02:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://www.reportingcivilrights.org/authors/bio.jsp?authorId=85 also notes that his Ph.D. is in history. Skywriter 02:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page 16 of the 2002 edition of Moving Train: "Close to finishing my Ph.D. work in history at Columbia University..." DanKeshet 03:13, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, looks my source was wrong; thanks for the research everyone. But see my comments in the new section below about the larger difficulties surrounding this article and Zinn's contributions to the academy. RadicalSubversiv E 04:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Describing Zinn

Let me preface all of the following by saying that I have enormous admiration for Howard Zinn, and have since I first read People's History as a sophomore in high school, lest anyone think that I am somehow attempting to attack him.

Like Chomsky, Zinn is a distinguished academic who has also had a long career as an activist, with the latter producing a lot of popular writing, much of which is essentially polemical in nature. Unlike Chomsky, however, it is not possible to clearly and cleanly separate his academic career from his activism. Our challenge in this article is to treat both seriously, without completely conflating the two.

Skywriter's latest edits do this by replacing a description of Zinn's approach to history with a description of his personal political ideology (which I agree is unique and not easily categorized). If we want to treat his career seriously, the article needs to be emphasize that most of his original intellectual contributions are as much political science as history -- theoretical arguments for a certain approach to scholarship and the public role of the academic. (People's History is essentially a secondary work synthesizing the scholarship of others -- it is widely-read because it is comprehensive, coherent, and well-written, not because any of the material is original, which is what the academy prizes.)

I don't have the time right now to work on a rewrite, but anyone who does needs to look at incorporating a discussion of the New Left and New History.

RadicalSubversiv E 04:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RadicalSubversiv, do you want to say what you think are "theoretical arguments for a certain approach to scholarship and the public role of the academic" in The Southern Mystique? Would you say what is not original about it?

Would you make a case for lack of originality in Zinn's reporting of desegregation in Albany, Georgia? Who else wrote about it? My reading of the Albany stories finds all original research. Did your reading find differently?

And the Royan stories—was that also synthesis of other people's research or was he writing history based on primary sources?

Would you provide examples of what you would describe as a Zinn polemic, or cite others who allege he is a polemicist? I'd like to better understand what you are saying.

You seem to want to remove Zinn from the category of historian and place him in an as yet undefined area called political science, or in a nether land of polemics. You are making judgments about Zinn's body of work that is unfamiliar. We will better understand your claims when and if you provide examples and sources. Skywriter 07:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to qualify what I said earlier because it is inaccurate to underestimate Zinn's role as activist. Some of his writing is polemical in the sense of their being calls to action. The Logic of Withdrawal absolutely called for an end to the US war against Vietnam, and for that and his subsequent anti-war writing, Zinn was then and is now the most sought-after anti-war speaker.

His Disobedience and Democracy: nine fallacies on law and order was a direct answer to a tract then Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas wrote on the primacy of law and order, which was the then official mode of looking at calls for change (by beating hell out of those who were calling for change, such as in the marches in Selma and Montgomery, street rebellions all over the country after the assassination of M L King Jr. and later, the beatings and police riot at the Democratic Convention in Chicago.)

His recent war writings, including Terrorism and War, provide arguments to end all war and are in that sense polemical.

Postwar America: 1945-1971 begins on August 6, 1945 at 9 a.m. when the United States became the first and only country ever to use nuclear weaponry against hundreds of thousands of civilians. Against that backdrop, Zinn examines the U.S. rhetorical creed (All men are created equal ...inalienable rights...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) comparing it to the U.S. working creed summed up by George Orwell in Animal Farm as "Some people are more equal than others."

A strong sense of morality always pervades Zinn's writing, and that is no secret. The difference between Zinn and some other historians is that he talks about his point of view. Some (not all) historians hide behind a cloak of "objectivity," which is of course ridiculous because the very selection of facts is based on one's opinion of what is important. For example, historians long depicted George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as "planters." Historians like Zinn and Leon F. Litwack, whose book "Been in the Storm So Long" beat "People's History" for the National Book Award, told stories showing that Washington and Jefferson owned people who were their planters. History very much depends on point of view and whose interest is being represented in the telling of the story. Skywriter 19:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky-Zinn differences

I disagree with Radicalsubversiv on several key points. In his political writing, Chomsky is a polemicist; his polemics suffer for lack of editing. Zinn, in contrast, is an original, witty, and graceful writer (and speaker) of history who differs from most other historians in that he tells the stories of the struggles of ordinary people. Above all, Zinn is a story-teller, and that is why his readers keep coming back. We also disagree about the nature of People's History. No other historian told the story of Columbus, based on original research, in the way Zinn did. And when he did so, the rest of the world woke up and followed both his lead and his analysis because he told the story from a different point of view than what had been traditionally told. Zinn follows very much in the path of the WPA writers, and in the tradition of Dickens and Upton Sinclair and Mark Twain. His original research on LaGuardia in Congress very much reflects and transcends both the old and new left. Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology is a rigorous and original application of Zinn's ideas to traditional thinking. Skywriter 05:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, RadicalSubversiv is correct: People's History is mostly synthesis. The first chapters rely heavily on earlier ethnohistorical work, particularly Francis Jennings's groundbreaking 1975 The Invasion of America, which Zinn cites and quotes often. Zinn's class analysis has older roots: his take on the American Revolution is, of course, Charles Beard redux.
Jennings's book was in some ways more radical than Zinn's: the U.S. was gearing up for a glorious bicentennial celebration, and here's a history book that portrayed the early colonization of America as armed genocidal conquest. Of course, the anti-traditional thrust of Jennings's book was in tune with the discontent many felt since the Vietnam War. Zinn's book came at the end of this cycle of 70s discontent; it was summation, not innovation. Zinn's contribution was making it all accessible for a general audience. (He was not writing for a scholarly audience -- that would have entailed more use of primary sources, not to mention footnotes.) --Kevin Myers 15:48, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Again, I've only read two Zinn books: People's History and SNCC right now, but the two are drastically different. People's History is a survey, and SNCC talks about what the SNCC people ate for breakfast each morning. I don't disagree about People's History (although I think the fact that it's synthesis doesn't disqualify it from being history), but SNCC is a different animal altogether; something of a cross between memoir, history, and long-form journalism. DanKeshet 17:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Revisionist history"

is fully accurate. there are some serious revisionist historians, whether people think Zinn himself is one or not, and it is indisputable that his version is revisioinism of the generally-accepted telling of U.S. history in today's school textbooks. J. Parker Stone 08:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Zinn is unquestionably a revisionist historian in the original, academic sense that he is a historian "who has revised a previously accepted view of a particular topic". But, as our article on revisionism points us, this usage is falling out of favor, as revisionism has increasingly become "a pejorative term for biased historical work" in popular circles. This is what many, if not most, of our readers will see in calling Zinn a "revisionist", and thus presents a serious NPOV problem. Meanwhile, no one has explained the problem with the original "radical re-telling" phrase. RadicalSubversiv E 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The historical revisionism article is also there. DanKeshet 18:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
"Revisionist" is simply a better way to put it than "re-telling," which is vague. This is history written from Zinn's own radical perspective and there is nothing wrong with the term. Regardless of the other article, I don't see how it's really perjorative -- if we wanted to be perjorative we could call Zinn's work biased or a political screed, which we are not doing. J. Parker Stone 00:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The word "re-telling" (better: "retelling") is Standard English. It's concise, appropriate and accurate, not at all vague*. In this context, "revisionist" is at best ambiguous and at worst simply a slur-word meant to slyly discredit without the user appearing confrontational. Those who would use "revisionist" might suggest "alternative" if they are honest, but "alternative" has a less dimissive/discrediting connotation than they might like. There's no real issue here, "radical retelling" is descripitive and neutral, no other option is necessary, and no other option been suggested that doesn't toy with violating NPOV.
*retell: To relate or tell again or in a different form (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).
*retelling: A new account or an adaptation of a story: a retelling of a Roman myth (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition).
Pinkville 20:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Art

Are there any objections to changing the art on this page? I'd like to replace the Marlboro art with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zinn.jpg and at a later point I'd like to add a photo of Zinn with the actor Brian Jones who has been traveling the country playing small theaters in the title character from Zinn's play Marx in Soho. Thanks. Skywriter 18:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC) skywriter 03:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zinn's Date of Birth

Hi, I'm wondering why people continue to enter wrong date of birth for Howard Zinn. What is the factual basis for doing this? He was not born December 7, 1922. He was born born August 24, 1922 in Brooklyn, New York. Please do not change this again unless you can offer evidence that the August date is incorrect. skywriter 05:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the factual (and humorous) basis for the August 24 date. Would anyone dispute that he knows his own birthday as well as the basis for the confusion?

From: howard zinn 
Date: Nov 15, 2005 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Birthday?
Okay, -------, who knows more, you or Wikipedia, which gets all its information from you?
Dec. 7 is Noam Chomsky's birthday, a date that will live in infamy, he reminds us.  
People often confuse the two of us, because of my extensive knowledge of linguistics.

skywriter wrote:

   Dear Howard,
   Please settle this.
   When is your birthday?
   Some people at Wikipedia keep wanting you to be born on December 7.
   I keep changing it to August 24.
   What is correct?
   Thanks.

````

I asked the other member the factual basis for changing Zinn's birthdate to Dec. 7 (which is not Zinn's but Chomsky's birthday). The following is that discussion.

moved from your talk page KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, would you explain the basis of changing the date of Howard Zinn's birth? Thanks. skywriter 05:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all: the other language wikis de:Howard Zinn, sv:Howard Zinn and nl:Howard Zinn and also the en.wikiquote.org have the december 7 date. Then after googling around I also found the following 3 sites with this date.

One site has the august 24 date:

So I think it's the december date. At least we should not have different dates in the language wikis. --Waelder 18:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, please see discussion on Howard Zinn page on indisputable fact that his birthdate is not December 7 and why this is a frequently made error, in Zinn's own humorous words. I am copying this discussion to the Howard Zinn discussion page because this error keeps cropping up, and this discussion should appear there. Thanks for your reply. skywriter 20:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Note if anyone tends the other langauge Howard Zinn pages, please make note of his correct birthdate August 24, 1922. The description of how this error evolved is a lesson in how misinformation travels. Thanks. skywriter 20:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

could it be any more laudatory? jeebs cripes Dr. Trey 12:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a bare two sentences of criticism of Zinn. It's pretty clear this page is maintained by cheerleaders, and even this discussion page (Which I generally find much more informative than the article) is nothing but a stroke page. I haven't seen the reference to him walking on water, though, so I guess for some people it counts as "neutral." But this is certainly one of the most useless, un-informative pages on Wiki, or the Web in general for that matter. Unfortunately, it appears only his wankers have enough time or interest to bother with this article...which says all I need to know about the man and his cult of personality, really. (No, I won't apologize for my language. Two sentences of criticism doesn't count as balance. It's a fucking joke. I would hope Zinn himself would be ashamed of such a stroke piece.)Mzmadmike 16:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

as far as i know, Howard Zinn is still alive. an anonymous user added the date of his death as december 26th 2005. a google news search turned up nothing, so i have reverted. i'm pretty sure the guy is still alive.--Alhutch 06:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Howard Zinn is well and thriving and looking forward to the publication of Anthony Arnove's new book due out of Beacon Press in a few weeks. Arnove's book is called Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal. Beacon Press published Zinn's book Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal in 1967.

The anonymous user changing dates appears to be a persistent vandal. Anyone know how to stop the vandal? skywriter 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

okay, there was this recent exchange with Wikipedia admin MySekurity explaining how to deal with vandalism. From: mysekurity Date: Dec 7, 2005 Subject: Re: Zinn page error fix

The best way to deal with people changing the date is to add this template {{subst:verror}} ((which spills out the words that you are reading,)) Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. for the second, and then tell me, and I'll follow 'em, or report it on WP:VIP. I am going to temporarily block those who falsely change the date, but your help would be greatly appreciated. Mysekurity

((Note you can't see the template, which consists of sybols and letters) when reading this page. You have to go into edit to see it. Same applies for second offense noted in the next graf.)) MySekurity says to add {{subst:verror}} onto the offending user's talk page. Click "edit this page" on the user's talk page, and add in one of those templates. If the user has other messages accusing them of adding in bad things, just alert me or the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN/I)/vandalism in progress (WP:VIP) skywriter 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Skywriter, I changed the wording so that you can see what to add (I hope you don't mind that I edited your post). You can also see {{vandal tags}} for help and suggestions about reverting vandalism. Thanks to you both for keeping the Wiki clean, and please let me know if you have any questions at all, Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources vs. Personal Opinion on Wikipedia

I don't understand how anyone can take this guy seriously. On the first page of his alternate history of America he says that Columbus made the natives into slaves. This is a claim that isn't supported by credible research. Why should we believe anything that Zinn writes? Morton devonshire 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Morty, what "credible research" contradicts Zinn's statement that Columbus enslaved Native Americans? Even Samuel Eliot Morrison, bigot that he was, knew the truth, and you can turn to a volume he edited, "Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of C. Columbus," to learn learn what's up, yourself. One small example? The testimony of Michele de Cuneo, an Italian nobleman who went along on Columbus's second voyage. Morrison includes De Cuneo's description of the 550 natives Columbus brought back to Spain as slaves -- 200 of which died en route, only to have their bodies "cast into the sea." DovLior 21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Columbus and crew made detailed notes about how brutal they were to the native people. Zinn wrote about how most of what we know about the slaughter is from their own journals. The People's History of the United States lists it's reserch. --8bitJake 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about slavery. Maybe Zinn extrapolated? If we can't trust people to adopt a neutral view, then what? How can we ever rely upon their work, if first we have to determine whether they are telling the truth? We should not be so quick to abandon the Age of Reason in favor of the Age of Propaganda. Morton devonshire 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
That Columbus - and those who came after him - pressed native people into slavery is not an example of Zinn extrapolating. It is a fact. The second paragraph of the book quotes Columbus himself: "They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." And from a different source (Medieval Sourcebook), another excerpt from Columbus's journal: "I do not, however, see the necessity of fortifying the place, as the people here are simple in war-like matters, as your Highnesses will see by those seven which I have ordered to be taken and carried to Spain in order to learn our language and return, unless your Highnesses should choose to have them all transported to Castile, or held captive in the island. I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men, and govern them as I pleased." With these sanguine observations, and Columbus's taking a number of the natives prisoner (as Zinn also describes), so began the history of native slavery as embodied in the encomienda system, in spite of the strenuous and well-reasoned opposition of Columbus's contemporary, Bartolomé de Las Casas. You might want to consult the article on Christopher Columbus for further references on this issue. Pinkville 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No history book has a neutral view. By what views and fact they choose to include it skews it. Every history book you have ever read has some serious POV. That is Howard Zinn main point in writing A People's History of the United States. --8bitJake 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand how difficult it is to arrive at an objective recitation of facts as a historian, but that doesn't mean that we should abandon reason completely and make stuff up. There's still a place for reason and objectivity in our world. Morton devonshire 18:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Zinn has cited his referances in A People's History of the United States. --8bitJake 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

References? To his own work? I understand that Zinn's scholarship on American history does not withstand peer review. Morton devonshire 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am now going to assume that you have not actually read the book and I am going to ignore you at this point. --8bitJake 21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your assumptions would be wrong. The text was used in my high school social studies class. Morton devonshire 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I posted two references above that directly refute your two assertions: that Zinn doesn't use legitimate sources and that "no credible research" supports Zinn's description of native slavery. The first source I gave is from the People's History in which Zinn openly quotes Columbus himself, and the other source I found online in a mere minute or two - also a quotation from Columbus. Pinkville 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. This discussion page is about the article not your views on the subject of the article. --8bitJake 22:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire, Where is the evidence that Zinn has cited himself as a reference? Or is this your unsupported opinion?

By researching the original diaries, particularly the writings of Bartolomé de las Casas, that are available from the Columbus trips to the land mass that came to be known as the Americas, Zinn made a real contribution in People's History toward knocking down the persistence of hagiographic myths in the Christopher Columbus narrative.

On the Christopher Columbus controversy, Zinn recommends [7] the following:

The Journal of Christopher Columbus (Bonanza Books, 1960) One of many editions of his account of his voyages.
The Devastation of the Indies, by Bartolmé de las Casas (Seabury Press, 1974). The closest we can get to an eyewitness account of the terrorism inflicted on the Indians.
Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise (Knopf, 1990) A treasury of information about the Columbus experience and about the treatment of that experience through the centuries.
Hans Koning, Columbus: His Enterprise (Monthly Review Press, 1992). A pioneering, succinct critique of Columbus and his forays.
Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America (Monthly Review Press, 1973). Continues the story of European conquest by tracing the relations between the United States and Latin America from Columbus down to our times. A poetic, powerful account.
Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America (Little Brown, 1993). A sweeping and important survey of the history of ethnic groups (including Indians, blacks, Jews, Irish, Asians, Chicanos and others). Unique.

People's History has been reviewed by school boards all over the U.S. and that is the basis of its becoming a popular history text. Do you care to cite (and link to) respected historians who negatively reviewed People's History? Please include the titles of volumes that historians critical of Zinn have written and their teaching history.

Morton devonshire, without verifable evidence, howling in the wind is an ineffective persuader. Cite your sources. skywriter 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sky-man and Pinkville. Thank you for responding to my criticism, and not insulting me. Too often people get close to their subjects on Wikipedia, and they feel like criticizing the subject is criticism of them personally -- it's not. Cheers. Morton devonshire 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton, I suspect your differences are with Bartolomé de las Casas and not Zinn. Unfortunately, de las Casas hasn't been around for 500 years to defend himself. Much has changed in historical writing about Columbus since historians began taking a long and hard look at the original diaries of de las Casas. The revisions began earlier, were popularized by Zinn and now have taken on a life of their own. Here's a place to begin: http://www.lascasas.org/lascasaswritings.htm. It is the work of two historians at Harvard. Best wishes, skywriter 23:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point of View of Unsigned Comment

"...offers a radical re-telling of United States history."

Radical re-telling seems misleading. It is not a re-telling per se, as it is the side of history which is not told in most history books. I think this line should be edited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlee562 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 January 2006

Have you got a satisfactory alternative to express: "the side of history which is not told in most history books"? See also the above debate ("Revisionist history") on the phrase "radical re-telling". By the way, don't forget to sign your comments. Pinkville 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about disingenuous (note corrected spelling) but that phrase could be more precise. Thanks for pointing that out. I will try to fix that. skywriter 13:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, frankly, I don't see any reason to change "radical re-telling", except to "radical retelling"... Pinkville 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"retelling" or "re-telling" gives a pejorative connotation to the work. Zinn's work offers an alternative point of view. He is not trying to 're write' history, but rather to shed light on a different perspective. Jlee562 09:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't view "retelling" as pejorative at all! Funny. I understand the word to be neutral - certainly neutral compared to "revisionist". I could see reasons to object to "alternate point of view", since that begins to sound relativist. But it may not matter as skywriter has rewritten the section involved to avoid this pitfall altogether. :~) Pinkville 11:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annales School entry is speculative, lacks documentation

Hi Lapaz, Thanks for accurately changing "other" to "most" historians on the Howard Zinn page.

However, with your permission, I plan to delete the following on grounds it is speculative and there is no citation documenting that Foucault is a major or even minor influence on Zinn.

Zinn traces his viewpoint to his class background and experiences, and to Marxist and anarchist thinkers. Do you know of independent research placing Zinn within the Annales School, or of a personal admission by Zinn that this is the case? His books and speeches are widely available.

This note is being placed on the Howard Zinn discussion page, as well as your talk page.

Paragraph in dispute: This way of viewing history may be related both to Foucault's conception of resistance and "power" and to the famous Annales School, which rejected history centered on individual subjects to concentrate on wider time-scales, where geography, economics and demography held a major role.

I look forward to your reply. skywriter 16:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I quibble with this add: "Antimilitarism perhaps would be a better term to define his conceptions." on grounds it is speculative and directly precedes this footnote, [8] a citation that is not speculative ("perhaps") at all but a precise quote. skywriter 16:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is interesting pointing out where such a conception of history comes from (explicit or implicit influences, that's another debate). The Annales School, which was heavily influenced by marxism, is one of the first famous attempt at thinking a history not centered on heroes (or great men). The Foucault ref may be considered a bit less direct; however, both certainly share a similar conception of power (see Foucault's history of "unfamous" people - by "unfamous", he means there "non famous", lost to history, buried by other histories...). It should certainly remain, but could be moved to another place in the article. And antimilitarism is to make a distinction with pacifism, maybe it characterize better Zinn's position. Lapaz

Lapaz, please reply to the central question. Where is the evidence that the Annales School influenced Howard Zinn? The origin of this speculation must be show by reference to specific text, or the speculation deleted. Wikipedia does not allow original research. "Interesting" "perhaps" and "maybe" are insufficient. As with the imprecise phrase "antimilitarism," when Zinn has explicitly defined his point of view, and he has on many occasions, it is both unfair and inaccurate to characterize his viewpoint with philosophical terms you may prefer but that do not apply to the subject of this article. The article fairly describes Zinn's history as a bombardier and his anti-war views, and every such item is footnoted. To describe Zinn simplistically as "antimilitary" misses his support for VVVAW, footnoted in this article, as well as his support for foot soldiers in every war. No one objects to tying Zinn to the Annales School or, for that matter, even to "antimilitarism" if it can be shown that linkage has been made, rightly or wrongly, elsewhere. The basis can not be one person's opinion, or original research by the writers of Wikipedia articles. skywriter 08:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on the absence of reference linking Zinn to the Annales School, these sentences will now be deleted. skywriter 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-war template reverted

A long anti-war template was added to the top of the Zinn page. I reverted it because it is out of place in a bio and nowhere mentions the specific topic of this page. skywriter 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

This article speaks almost entirely in a sympathetic tone to Zinn's positions, and while it may not slip into POV about the man, it certainly seems to adopt some of his conclusions and represent them as factual, for example: "The bombing took the lives of French civilians and also German soldiers who were doing little more than waiting out the closing days of the war."

Also, a large portion (if not a majority) of the article consists of direct quotations from Zinn, presented entirely uncritically. It seems like these should be condensed to the kernels of his views, and placed alongside criticism--for a man as controversial as he is, there's surprisingly little representation of that here. (current version) Night Gyr 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As to the quote:
If you know of another who has researched and written about the implications of the bombing of Royan, why not add that? As to the rest of your comment, there are many broad cheapshots taken at Zinn personally but I know of none who take on the content of his research and ideas in a serious and scholarly manner. Do you know of any? As with any Wikipedia article, this one strives for neutrality and is open to all viewpoints, properly sourced. skywriter 05:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I haven't seen any published papers in scholarly journals dedicated to the man, but criticism of historians rarely take that form. His factually accuracy is regularly attacked by the right, and there are four links to that at the end of the article, but the words "criticized" or "controversy" don't even appear anywhere in it! For a man who's been villainized as bad as Hillary Clinton or Al Sharpton, that's a gaping hole in our coverage. Night Gyr 05:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is too easy to tag an article as non-neutral. It is incumbent on the editor who does this to try to ascertain and fix what that editor believes is not neutral. Otherwise that editor is merely adding to the long list of articles labeled NPOV. Would you like to begin by suggesting wording changes? Ideologues on the right and the left and in between regularly flail the objects of their fury by villainizing them. More level-headed folks isolate what is not neutral and discuss ways to make it more neutral. I am more than happy to work with you and other editors on this. Neutrality enhances the credibility of the entire encyclopedic effort. To dispute the neutrality of an article without providing specifics, and then working to reach consensus on changing it for the better, is not honest criticism. If you are a fan of villainizing Zinn, please have at it. But don't walk away without raising specifics. Otherwise you leave others with the impression your criticism is without foundation. What wording changes do you propose to make this article acceptable to your viewpoint? skywriter 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I provided three specifics:
  1. No mention of criticism whatsoever
  2. Repetition of Zinn's conclusions as facts
  3. Sympathetic viewpoint in prose

I think a first step would be to at least not repeat the fawning in the introduction a second time. Why do we need

Not one to record history from the top down or through the eyes and actions of politicians and magnates, Zinn presents the viewpoint of ordinary people engaged in actions to improve the quality of their lives. He taps into the vein of forgotten and overlooked stories but emphasizes, [4] "We are not starting from scratch. There is a long history in this country of rebellion against the establishment, of resistance to orthodoxy. There has always been a commonsense perception that there are things seriously wrong and that we can't really depend on those in charge to set them right."

When we have

While most historians study the role of great men in affecting history, Zinn chronicles history from the bottom up, from the street, the home, and the workplace. His signature work, A People's History of the United States, is told from the viewpoint of—and in the words of—its women, factory workers, African-Americans, Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers. In his contribution to a balanced understanding of history, Zinn describes how many of the country's greatest internal battles—for labor laws, women's rights and racial equality—were carried out at the grassroots level, against steel-willed resistance. It is "a history written from the standpoint of those who have been marginalized politically and economically and whose struggles have been largely omitted from most histories."

Plus we have phrases like the bolded ones above, where the article asserts unsupportedly that Zinn is balanced. I'd be fine with saying that he was attempting at it, since that's what he was apparently doing, but the article asserts that he succeeds, when that is in fact a highly disputed statement. Furthermore, in the second bolded section Zinn's quote suddenly becomes the truth, because we lead into it uncritically and say that it is so, rather than saying Zinn asserts or giving some other qualified introduction.

There are many more issues in this article, that's why I tagged it POV-check and not NPOV. It needs a thorough going over by someone who's willing to accept criticism as at least worthy of mention, if not necessarily correct or valid. Night Gyr 08:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why you don't go ahead and make the changes you believe are warranted. You have obviously thought this out. Thrashing out the different viewpoints always makes an article a stronger and more interesting read. You are spot on about the redundancy. That does need cleaning up. skywriter 09:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To Night Gyr, I think you have misread the following phrase: "In his contribution to a balanced understanding of history, Zinn describes...", which doesn't say that Zinn is balanced, or that his history is balanced, but that his history in combination with others provides a balanced understanding of history. Pinkville 18:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Which still asserts that reading him will lead to a net increase in balance. I wouldn't call Ann Coulter's books a "contribution to a balanced understanding of history" since they're written with blatant bias. If Zinn's bias is as bad as he accused of being, then the statement is flawed. Night Gyr 19:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Zinn is a historian, Coulter is not, so she's not a relevant example. If he is biased, then by definition his works balance the understanding of history. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., let's say, might represent another point in a balanced understanding of US history. Furthermore, Zinn states his "bias" explicitly (telling the stories of common people, etc. which are usually left out of history books), he does not lay claim to all views or a neutral view. And, being a historian, he necessarily contributes to a balanced understanding of history - whether one agrees with his conclusions or not. It's the same as in science, in which different scientists hold different and often contradictory theories, yet they all contribute to a balanced understanding of science. Pinkville 19:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To Night Gyr: Coulter substitutes cruelty and vulgarity for addressing the content of critical argument. Zinn's writing is clear, elegant, and understated but, please, don't take my word for it. See for yourself. There are included on the article page links to the full text of some of his books online. I don't recall if the following are linked but Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology address the issues you raise as does Politics of History. Because I am old and nearly blind, I have difficulty reading on screen. With a magnifier, I prefer inexpensive, second hand copies so easily obtainable online. skywriter 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deer Dance and Howard Zinn

There is a lyric from Deer Dance that says we can't afford to be neutral on a moving train. Would this be a reference to Howard Zinn's autobiography, which is titled You Can't Afford to be Neutral on a Moving Train?

A couple of people have speculated that is so. Someone should ask the song writer. Zinn talks about what it means here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/27/1350240 and here: http://www.sunrisedancer.com/radicalreader/detail.asp?iArt=50&iType=26

skywriter 06:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And just a wee reminder, Zinn's book is: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train - no "Afford to"... Pinkville 11:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random fluff

I've been bold and cut about half of this article. It was largely random fluff about him. It was largely written in the style of a book report, and not a particularly good one. It went off on random tangents in his biography about his political views, with huge swaths of quotes from his books.

Most of it would have been better suited for a "Political views" section or whatever, and I considered moving it, but it was written in such unencyclopedic terms that it would have been silly. There just wasn't a lot of redeeming value in there.

These changes, while extreme in size, were needed to make this article even vaguely resemble something reasonable.

Bibigon 13:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large Scale Attacks Unsupported by Reasoning

Revision as of 11:31, 13 March 2006 Bibigon (Talk | contribs) Sentence is laughably unencyclopedic. deletion: While most historians study the role of great men in affecting history, Zinn chronicles history from the bottom up: from the street, the home, and the workplace.

Sorry, Bibigon. This sentence is exactly what Zinn does, and there is an entire school of historians doing the same. You seem to lack a grasp of the subject matter. skywriter 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:37, 13 March 2006 Bibigon (Talk | contribs) I've been bold, and removed a whole lot of fluff that adds nothing to the article that isn't covered later anyways.

Not bold, Bibigon, brazen and uninformed perhaps. skywriter 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:51, 13 March 2006 Bibigon (Talk | contribs) Biography - Ok. I've been bold again. I removed things which had very little to do with his bio. See talk

Dear Bibigon, We get it that you don't like Zinn's ideas. It is not okay to delete them on that basis. Find a credible source to say what you want, or play in the sand box. Imposing the Bibigon opinion by deletion is not persuasive.skywriter 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The deletion of the following: "While most historians study the role of great men in affecting history...." was a good one. The 'great man' school of history is one among many, and without citing some cources, can hardly be posited as the starting point of "most historians". DMorpheus 19:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, DMorpheus. I have changed 'most' to 'many' and added a footnote to Thomas Carlyle, an advocate of "great man" school of historians but I don't think I formatted it correctly. Because it is the first footnote, it should show up as such. I wasn't sure whether to add the 5 to this Note 5: and did but it looks wrong.

I think the overall point is important, and concur it may not be explained clearly. Zinn does tell stories of people's struggles and that is distinctive. Unlike Paul Johnson, the Brit tabloid writer turned amateur historian, who wrote A History of the American People to directly compete with A People's History, Zinn views history through the eyes of people who are struggling, and not those who make the rules. skywriter 20:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand that a statement that he views history through the eyes of those struggling is inherently POV? A NPOV statement would be that he claims to try and do this. To say that he does is to give credibility to his POV. Bibigon 20:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Bibgon's wholesale deletions of large sections of this article, characterised as necessary removals of fluff and irrelevancies, only do her/himself a disservice. Lost amongst the wanton dissappearances were one or two fair and useful edits, including the deletion of the above-mentioned "great men" passage (although I think providing a brief but subtler and more accurate description of mainstream historians' work would have been a better option than merely removing any reference to it). And in reference to this edit summary: "Taking things slow isn't Wiki policy. No discussion was ongoing on the talk page. Any specific issues you have? See talk page." It is counter to the spirit of WP policy to delete text in such a "bold" manner without first raising the issues in the talk page. It doesn't take much effort to look at the Howard Zinn article's edit history and talk page to see that there has been quite a bit of controversy - there is even, one might notice, a NPOV warning at the start. To say that there is no ongoing discussion seems a bit disingenuous. These edits resemble more an attempt at speedy deletion of the whole article by a thousands cuts than an honest effort to improve it. Pinkville 19:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, these edits were an attempt to resolve the very issues which led the NPOV warning from the start. If you look at them closely, rather than be stunned by the degree of the change, you should be able to see that yourself. Bibigon 20:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Now we are indeed having the discussion that should have taken place before such massive deletions. But having made the deletions first, and with the flippant tone of your edit summaries, this hasn't started off as effectively or pleasantly as might have been the case. Something to keep in mind for future occasions. I actually read all of your edits one by one before posting my above comment and I wasn't "stunned" by the scale - though the scale is not an irrelevant issue. Like you, I believe that the article relies too heavily on quotations from Zinn and his work when the man and his thoughts can be better represented by description and summary. However, removing (wholesale) passages devoted to his writings, thoughts and involvement in such activities as, for example, opposition to the War on Iraq is highly problematic (and not NPOV). The extensive section that dealt not only with his opposition to US actions in Iraq, but with Zinn's position regarding war itself you condensed from 9 paragraphs of mixed quotations and summary to this:
"In the decades that followed, Zinn supported the G.I. antiwar movement during the U.S. war in Vietnam."
... thereby removing a preponderance of quotation to be sure, but also disappearing valuable descriptions of his views that are key to an accurate and fulsome understanding of Zinn and his work. A better tack than removal would be rewriting. That would better ensure NPOV. If you don't want to take on the task yourself that's fine, your points have been noted and maybe someone else will address them in the article itself. Pinkville 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What you don't seem to get is that his opposition to the War in Iraq and the like does not belong in his biography. I feel very strongly his political views on Vietnam and Iraq should be in the article, but in a seperate section on his political views rather than a biographic sketch of his life. Those 9 paragraphs were describing his politics, not his life. I left in the factual bits, and removed the statements about his political views, which simply didn't belong there. I removed wholesale portions from sections in which they didn't belong, and nobody has yet given me any reason to believe that I was mistaken with that assessment. The best way for this article to be improved as near as I can tell is for my edits to be restored, and a section on his political views be penned. I was originally going to move much of the text which I deleted into such a section, but then I realized that the the text was beyond saving by and large. I personally do not enough about his political views to write a new such section myself, which is why I hesitate to do it myself. Bibigon 21:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
"I feel very strongly his political views on Vietnam and Iraq should be in the article, but in a seperate section on his political views rather than a biographic sketch of his life."
But you deleted them, rather than simply moving them.
As I explained, what was in the article earlier was not worth moving. His views should be in a seperate political section, but not as they were presented in the biographical section. There wasn't anything worth moving, but rather plenty worth writing from scratch. Bibigon 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"I personally do not [know] enough about his political views to write a new such section myself". If you don't know, then leave it alone. Or post your problems with the writing in the talk page and suggest ways that other - more knowledgeable editors - can improve the article. Again, don't simply delete text. That is not at all constructive. You'll notice I haven't particularly disagreed with your "assessment" but rather, objected to your methods. Pinkville 00:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. Deleting the text was plenty constructive, in that it didn't detract from the article(since the text was of essentially no value), and instead it improved it, by removing many many paragraphs of fluff, leaving just the facts. It improved the quality of the article without removing anything that in my opinion was salvagable. Not knowing enough about his political views to write a new section from scratch does not disqualify me from knowing a bad Wiki article when I see it, and it doesn't disqualify me from removing content that is fundamentally unencyclopedic. It merely prevents me from being currently capable to rewriting it. The version I left had the same amount of solid Wiki content, and less clutter better suited for Wikiquote. Deleting content that doesn't fit Wikipedia is a very reasonable and constructive step. I just don't see a lot in the way of reason to not revert back the version I left, but I'll leave things alone for a bit, and hope someone can give me a good reason why what I deleted has value in its current form. Bibigon 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
No I don't get it. I don't get why you persist with this irritating flippant manner. I have responded to your edits and your comments with a variety of suggestions which you prefer to ignore - characterising me as "stunned" and unable to understand your ostensibly lofty point. Deleting content that is vandalism is correct. Deleting the body of an article that is clearly an ongoing project is not. Offering constructive points for - by your own admission - more knowledgeable editors to act upon would be far more constructive than your efforts have been to this point. You seem only willing or able to insist that the WP community accept your lifeless stub. You make some very sweeping evaluations, apparently confirmed in your belief that you are the sole, legitimate judge as to what constitues "essentially valuable text", "fluff", that which is "salvageable", "solid Wiki content", etc. - all, again, from an admitted point of ignorance. "I don't know a lot about art but I know what I like", seems to be your credo. Such logic may qualify for a purchaser of art but not a critic of it. It's a simple point, maybe too simple, since I have to repeat it: raise problematic issues in the talk page before eviscerating the article in question - it leaves a better after-taste and it gives other people the chance to colloborate with you to improve the article. If that's your real interest. Pinkville 01:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
You have not responded to my edits and comments with any suggestions which have any applicability in this case. Deletion of unencyclopedic content, content which has prompted a NPOV complaint, is a reasonable step. I have offered constructive points for more knowledgeable editors to act upon, namely, that a seperate "Politics of Howard Zinn" section be crafted. I've suggested that several times now. Saying that my credo is "I don't know a lot about art but I know what I like" simply further demonstrates to me that you do not understand the difference between knowledge of Zinn's politics and knowledge of what makes a good Wikipedia article. Either you don't understand the distinction, or you are intentionally bringing up strawman arguments to further your points. There is no policy that all changes need to be discussed in talk beforehand, so I don't see where you're going with that. I did not expect my edits to be particularly controversial because I expected fellow editors to instantly see that what I eliminated was not worthwhile content. When I saw there was resistance, I backed off and did not revert again. It's a simple matter really. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The Zinn article had some encyclopedic elements, and a great many other elements. I removed those others, and asked that fellow editors fill the gaps with a section on Zinn's politics. So far, rather than be given constructive criticism of my changes, I have instead been met with personal attacks, strawman attacks, and very little in the way of real substance. Bibigon 02:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this has nothing to do with Zinn's ideas, and that's why I will continue to push such edits. It has to do with how good Wikipedia articles should work. The article starts with a huge intro, which goes far beyond introducing Howard Zinn, but rather serves to give a lengthy summary of his views and his life. Much of it belonged in a biographical section, while the rest was probably better suited for Wikiquote. The biographical section was quite similar. I merely cut out the parts that weren't connected to his biography, but were primarily just swaths of text from Zinn himself.
Keep that in mind here, Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes by the person in question, neither in the spoken form, nor in the written form.
What I would suggest you do if you feel my edits have shortchanged Zinn is to write a section on Zinn's political views. You can include some quotes there, but it should primarily be a summary, you know, like an Encyclopedia entry? It should not be written like a book report trying desperately to prove that the student actually read the content in question. The Noam Chomsky article is an example of a good biography. It establishes who the guy is, then goes into his life, covers his major works, then has a section on his political views, and on his critics.
Right now, this article is primarily a collection of Zinn's work presented uncritically. Do you understand the difference between the two?
Bibigon 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint, Bibigon, as the comparison with Chomsky is way off mark. The article on Chomsky is different in that he is a subject matter expert in lingustics with a pro and con following for that as well as, secondarily, for his interest in, and books written about politics. skywriter 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

This article needs to be completely restructured, in my opinion. Reading through to the first subheading, it's roughly like this:

  • Basic biography
  • Approach to history
  • Opinion on WWII
  • Views on history & neutrality
  • Views on overlooked history
  • Political views
  • Views on political and economic solutions

And all this before the first subheading, in an almost random fashion.

Also, a lot of quotes concerning his views are shoehorned into the section on his biography. It needs a lot of editing to make it more "encyclopaedic", a bigger problem than that of POV. --Liquidindian 05:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal?

Will someone explain the meaning of this and its page history. What mediator has this been assigned and where can people comment? What is the process? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-16_Howard_Zinn

skywriter 20:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Since I've been singled out, it's good to know of the existence of this mediation case. I'll have to respond later - and at that page. Pinkville 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] basis of non-neutral tag?

What is the basis of the non-neutral tag and where is the argument on the talk page showing pro and con in support of and opposed to different viewpoints. In the absence of discernible dispute, it will be deleted. skywriter 21:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the section labled POV above. I believe that's where it originated. I think the tag is warranted still, as the issues raised in that post have not been addressed. They are the same issues which I alluded to myself earlier. Bibigon 22:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for Bibigon to respond to my many replies to his comments earlier on this page. Bibigon hasn't said a word about my replies. And yet, Bibigon opens a case about this article. Wow. Where is the respect for people who work on the article? skywriter 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your replies earlier on this page. I made specific suggestions myself, and there was no movement, so I asked for help with mediation. Bibigon 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Look again, Bibigon, you did not reply to my comments. You ignored the content pushing viewpoint without offering even one constructive suggestion. skywriter 23:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit the article but Bibigon kept grabbing it, slapping tags on it and changing what I wrote. That kind of aggression sure does discourage me from working on this article.

How so? Can you provide diffs where I changed what you wrote other than the one word "dominant"? And the tags are needed, as this article is in pretty awful shape. Bibigon 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for Bibigon to respond to my many replies to his comments earlier on this page. Bibigon hasn't said a word about my replies. And yet, Bibigon opens a case about this article. Wow. Where is the respect for people who work on the article? skywriter 22:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bibigon, please list the items that identify why you think this article deserves to be tagged with This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy. Please be detailed and offer constructive solutions, using valid sources to back up your claims. There is no example of an alternative viewpoint being deleted or reverted from this article. We welcome what you have to say. Your earlier comments (above) are vague and offer no possibility of a fix because they are long on viewpoint and short on content. Please offer specific solutions. Be prepared to say what you will do to add content to this article. So far, you seem content with ordering other people around. Vast deletions just because you know nothing about it and don't like it-- are unpersuasive.

In particular, I found the layout tag offensive. It would have been easy to fix that and yet, in an act of aggression, the tag was used.

By the way, I tried to fix this article today, but you grabbed it twice to change it, while I was working on it and so I have given up.

skywriter 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's your right to abandon the process and move on to other topics. Please come back once you have considered the issue in more detail.
As for the POV tag, I did not place it there in the first place, I merely pointed out that the issues which caused it to be placed there remain. Namely that the article currently presents many of Zinn's opinions, and it does so uncritically. Please see the original POV complaint on the talk page for the origins of the tag. Bibigon 22:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for that list, Bibigon. I'm not going anywhere. Your comments are vague. What do you bring constructively to this article? In the absence of specifics, no one can make changes. What is the alternative viewpoint that was deleted or reverted? Until you show that, your case lacks content. What would you add? What would you subtract? Again, please be specific. Yes, the opinions of the article subject are included. Please cite examples of articles where that is not true. Please cite an example of adding someone who disagrees with a viewpoint Zinn presents who was deleted or reverted here. An example like that puts pedal to metal. Absent that is blowing wind. skywriter 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Night Gyr's comments above. I'm not going rewrite them for you. He added a POV check tag, and the issues he mentioned have not yet been dealt with. To quickly sum up however, the alternate viewpoint missing here is a viewpoint critical of Zinn's writings and works. This article primarily consists of Zinn's views, and stops there. That doesn't seem to be NPOV to me. Rather than just link to Zinn's critics, try and provide a summary of their work, explain why people are critical of his writings and his histories. Without that, this article suffers from NPOV issues.
However, the POV tag is not mine, and it's not my primary issue with this article. My issue lies primarily with the tone of the article, and the unencyclopedic way in which it is written. Again, please see the Noam Chomsky article for a decent layout of how one of these articles should look. Including a biographical sketch, a presentation of his views, and a seperate section on this views of his critics. It's really quite simple that way. My previous edits were an attempt to move us towards that, but they were reverted. Bibigon 23:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah but I did answer saying the comparison to Chomsky is not valid because Chomsky's primary contributions are in linguistics and he is also famous for his politics. You ignored that, and now repeat that claim without variation. Your vast deletions of text were reverted because you did not come to this talk page to present the case and discuss it. What you did resembled vandalism, of which there has been much in the history of this article. Etiquette is a good thing and prevents editing wars. I tried to fix the layout today and you kept interfering. More aggression, bibigon. And then you keep repeating yourself. Why don't you write something, offer some alt-viewpoints. It is easy to attack what other people do. If you want a section on critics, why don't you create it? That's what Wiki editors do. And they lay the basis for what they want to do in established articles. skywriter 23:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. What exactly does the fact that Chomsky was first a linguist have to do with things? It doesn't change how an article about him should be laid out. The relevance of your point was lacking, so it didn't seem to be worthy to respond to.
2. Your claims of vandalism are baseless here, as are your claims of aggression. I made edits, they were reverted, and I went into talk after that. I have no since reverted back to my changes. Your attempts to fix the layout dealt with only half the problem, which I why I reinstered the cleanup tags. That does not qualify as "aggression" as you put it.
3. Why don't I write something? By write, I assume you mean edit the article? I have done so, and my edits were reverted. I could write a section on Zinn's politics, but as I mentioned above, I feel there are probably other more qualified to do so. The same is true of his critics. My point here is that both sections are desperately lacking, and what exists instead is a mishmash of poetic prose, and of course, huge swaths of Zinn's writings. Every other well established biography is setup in a fashion similar to the one I have proposed for this article. Your resistance to it is very curious to me. Bibigon 04:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Why don't I write something? By write, I assume you mean edit the article?

Write means write. Add content if you are distressed that it does not represent your viewpoint. Find a source and quote or summarize. skywriter 06:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, editors at Wikipedia can help improve articles by adding good material, or by removing bad material. Either way is a valid path to article improvement. There is no restriction that articles simply need to get larger and larger. Please see Deletionism for more information on this concept.


Have you tried Wikipedia:Etiquette? Informative! Highly recommended!! Well worth absorbing!!!

Bibigon wrote: The relevance of your point was lacking, so it didn't seem to be worthy to respond to.

Really? Here's the point again because you seem to have missed it.

I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint, Bibigon, as the comparison with Chomsky is way off mark. The article on Chomsky is different in that he is a subject matter expert in lingustics with a pro and con following for that as well as, secondarily, for his interest in, and books written about politics. skywriter 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC) skywriter 05:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You have just restated your own words, you have not explained why the Chomsky comparison is off the mark. Why is it relevant that Chomsky has done more than just linguistics? He is also a famous political activist, similar to Zinn. Your argument here is largely nonsequiturs, which doesn't help much insofar as making a point. Perhaps you'd care to clarify it? Bibigon 05:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You have said you know nothing about this subject. No one doubts that. After coming in like gangbusters, deleting half the article, perhaps you would now be so gracious as to take the time to read the discussion on this talk page? skywriter 06:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This will be the final time I will respond to you strawman attacks, as frankly, I have gotten tired of them. I have not said I know nothing about this subject. I have said I don't know enough to write a good new section on his politics myself. You have mischaracterized this several times in an attempt to show I am unqualified to edit this article. Please try and stick to the facts in the future, and focus on the issues rather than resorting to what I can only interpret to be intentional deception and mischaracterization. Furthermore, regardless of one's knowledge of the subject matter, one can still perform good edits to articles. This can be done by removing unencyclopedic content. That you seem to lack an understanding of this concept is your own problem at this point, as I have articulated it several times for you.
Given that you have not given me any solid reasons to reject the kinds of edits I was proposing, and your generally counterproductive behaviour with regards to this topic, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you for the time being. Let me know however, either on this talk page, or on my talk page, once you're willing to get back to the matter and hand and become a productive Wikipedian again. Bibigon 20:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] medcabal

Hello all -- I am responding to a request made for the mediation cabal to help out -- see here. It's been a few days, so if people could let me know if they still would like some outside help in resolving disputes, that would be great. Bibigon, Pinkville, skywriter -- could you just put a note after this comment to let me know if you're still interested, and then we can get going! Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't feel I'm part of a dispute, myself, though I would like to see some movement forward with this article (there's been some recent progress, it seems). And my fundamental point to begin with was simply that given thecontentious nature of the subject of the article I think it's particularly important to discuss major changes and to be more than usually careful about many minor changes that one might make. I'm happy to try to help resolve any lingering issues, of course. Pinkville 23:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely been awhile since the request; my feeling is let's let people continue to work on the article without an outsider (me) stirring the pot. There is definitely conflict and controversy here, but that's not unusual on the wiki. So what I'll do is take this page off my watchlist -- folks, please contact me if you get into a jam on my talk page, and I'll come back and we can start a "real" mediation. But right now it seems like the article needs a lot of elbow grease, and I wish people luck on that! Sdedeo (tips) 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I appreciate your willingness to help, but I have to say I was surprised when this was taken to mediation in the first place. I've seen far worse exchanges before. Thanks for the "open door". Pinkville 00:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Violation

"A People's History of the United States presents U.S. history through the eyes of ordinary people struggling to improve their lives, including striking workers, Native Americans, African-American slaves, women, African-Americans struggling against racism and for civil rights, Populists, and others whose stories are not often told." I could not think of a better example of NPOV violation if I spent eternity just pondering one and doing absolutely nothing else Stanley011 04:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


What exactly do you claim is not a summary of this book?

Please be precise. skywriter 20:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an editorialization of the book, not a summary. Not every African-American, Native-American, women and person struggling to improve their lives (aren't we all?) view history the same way. The sentence groups these people as if they were a monolith rather than individuals with individual perspectives of history. How patronizing and, more to the point, POV Stanley011

Although I'm not fond of this passage as it stands, it's worth pointing out that neither it nor the book itself claim that members of the groups listed view history the same way, quite the contrary. Zinn seeks to present a multiplicity of voices in his history. So I don't believe a POV objection on such grounds is justified. Interestingly, an earlier version of this intro included various wordings along the lines of "seeks to present", which might be better than the present. Pinkville 13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere do I see the statement that he "Seeks to represent." It's stated that he DOES and HAS. I'm not going to claim that Zinn is a far left asshole...because there isn't enough SUBSTANCE in this entire piece of shit article for me to get a handle on what the facts actually are and decide one way or the other. "Howard Zinn, born, studied, did all these great things. No one disputes or objects to his brilliance. The end."
I HAVE HEARD he's a far left asshole. Nothing here suggests he is. Nothing suggests he isn't, either. It might as well be a fan page or his marketing page for all the actual content. And His fellators not only don't see that, but claim that any dissent to their pet phrasing is NPOV. This ENTIRE ARTICLE is NPOV, and the discussion only illuminates that. I'm not objecting to the slant...I'm objecting that there isn't a baseline to compare the slant against.
PS: about that "Zinn is the first to comment on Columbus' slavery" bullshit--I heard about that in elementary school in the 1970s. It's hardly news. He may be one of the best known commentators on it, but he wasn't close to being first.Mzmadmike 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tags

Tags are not to be placed on pages merely because the tag placer does not like the ideas of the article's subject. The claim that this article was "non-encyclopedic" in form was addressed some weeks ago. If you have further changes to suggest, please have the courtesty to discuss it here. If you have specific reason why the page should be tagged, other than your own personal dislike of the subject of the article, please reveal those reasons. If you have factual material, from credible sources, feel free to add it to the article. skywriter 21:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the NPOV tag wasn't placed there by me, but by Stanley011. His concerns have not been addressed, so that tag should remain there. The cleanup tag is there for all the reasons I have articulated above, which Nysin has dealt with only partially. The underlying problems of this not reading like an Encyclopedia article remain. The article is currently still a jumble of his politics and his biography, and the two need to be seperated. This has nothing to do with a dislike of the subject, I in fact have no particular feeling about Zinn either way. Bibigon 21:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
NPOV tags indicate there is an active discussion going on about an issue. If there's no discussion there shouldn't be a tag. -Will Beback 21:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It's only been a couple days since Stanley011 posted his initial message. If he disappears and isn't willing to defend the tag, then I'd have no problem removing it. Give him a week or so to see if he's interested in a discussion. Bibigon 22:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What are your specific suggestions for changing the article, Bibigon? skywriter 22:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already stated them about a dozen times. Seperating out his political views from his biography is the single most pressing need for the article, as it's currently just a jumble. There needs to be a section on his politics, and a section on his critics, of whom there are many. I don't want to add the critics section without giving voice to his politics first, as that would be a NPOV violation, taking the POV of Zinn's critics. In general, the piece lacks the rigidity that an Encylopedia entry should have. Bibigon 03:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Pentagon Papers history

This is a big mistake. This is an important part of U.S. history and Zinn's history. skywriter 04:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptor of A People's History of the United States: 1492--Present

The following paragraph as currently in the article is inaccurate and misleading.

A People's History of the United States is a left wing revisionist account of American history. It is a book composed of a series of cartoon illustrations accompanying a description of different historical episodes in American history, purpotedly told through the perspective of historically opressed people. For example, there is a chapter titled "The Impossible Victory:Vietnam" that celebrates the communist rebels' victory over the United States in the Vietnam War and the ensuing totalitarian communist regime that seized control of Vietnam.

1. "left wing revisionist" is label based on personal viewpoint that does not address the book's content. 2. The sentence claiming the book contains "cartoon illustrations" is false as there are no cartoons or illustrations in any edition of this book. 3. The sentence about the chapter on Vietnam is false because Zinn does not address what happened in Vietnam after the United States left. 4. The paragraph is not factual in its entirety, and contains an array of error including spelling. 5. The paragraph is not a true representation of what is in the book.

I propose using a part of HarperCollins-- the publisher's -- description. http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060528427

Does anyone object?

If yes, please state your reasoning and cite an alternate source to describe this book.

skywriter 11:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I simply reverted to an earlier version of this passage. This "left wing revisionist" version duplicates even earlier entries that were previously discussed and dismissed as POV. I, for one, am not interesed in going over the same territory. Pinkville 13:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll happily object to using the publisher's account to describe the book. It's pretty obvious that the publisher isn't going to give a NPOV account of what the book does, and how well it does it. Bibigon 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've already reworded the paragraph anyway. Pinkville 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch...are you actually suggesting that a marketing blurb from that source is NEUTRAL? Far left published by far right and the marketing is your NEUTRAL source? Why don't you think about that again after the dope wears off.Mzmadmike 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissent/Patriotism/Thomas Jefferson

I think the fact check demanded for the sentence beginning: "'I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism,'" isn't a matter of whether or not Zinn said this (he obviously did), but rather is about the assertion made after the quote: "widely misattributed to Thomas Jefferson." A citation is needed for this. It may be that Zinn was simply quoting Jefferson (knowingly or unknowingly), but if it's true that the statement re: dissent and patriotism really has been misattributed to Jefferson when it was really coined by Zinn, that needs to be cited. My feeling is that it is extremely unlikely that a quote from Zinn would be "widely misattributed" to Jefferson who, afterall, lived 200 years ago, but it would be fascinating to be proved wrong. Pinkville 12:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've partially answered this question [9], though I'm still not wholly satisfied. It's remarkable that such a recently coined aphorism could be so quickly and easily misattributed, but there it is! I guess many folks would rather have Jefferson on their bumper stickers than Zinn. If anyone can provide a more authoritative source that would be great. Pinkville 12:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, having gone to the source - the Jefferson Library at Monticello [10] - I think the definitive source for this misattribution has been found. I stand corrected. It's terrifying how quickly this sort of misinformation can spread. Pinkville 13:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And, finally, I searched some of the other people to whom this quote has been attributed (Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, etc.) and found no reliable source for those attributions (more bumper stickers and unsourced blog postings). Interestingly, Barbara Ehrenreich said this: "No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots." [11], and I'm sure there are more similarly-worded observations by others. Pinkville 13:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOFX Reference

What's the relevance of this reference with respect to A People's History? I've removed it, just because it seems particularly trivial, in an article already filled with inane content. Bibigon 00:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tags

Tags are placed on pages when there is discussion and debate over specific issues or wording. What are the remaining issues on this page, and what is the specific wording in this article that is in contention?

List any examples of inane content from your point of view. Skywriter 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that the article lacks a seperate section on his politics, and a section on his critics. Right now, there's just one big section covering his bio, with political views thrown in. There's nothing about his critics, of whom there are many. That's not how a good Wikipedia article should go, and subsequently, it's not encyclopedic as long as this reads largely like a book report.
In general, the wording of the article is not particularly firm, and subsequently needs to be fixed up. However, that can't happen until the body of the article is completely restructured.
Finally, there are several unsourced assertions, assertions which I'm interested to see where they come from. If they remain unsourced for much longer, I see no reason to not remove them from the article. Bibigon 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Other editors look at what contributions other editors have made to other articles on Wikipedia in making an assessment of viewpoint and personal bias. This is the history activities each user creates.

Howard Zinn's writing is a primary source of the history of the civil rights movement. In the sloppy editing of the last month, even this citation was removed: http://www.reportingcivilrights.org/authors/biblio.jsp?authorId=85 This activity demonstrates a contempt for scholarship and a contempt for the subject matter. A lot of people find racial bias disgusting.

I have examined what you claim are unsourced assertions and find that the citations were removed in the sloppy edits of the last month. I have reinstated them. You could as easily have done so, if you had intended these criticisms to be consructive.

You consistently make unsubstantiated claims yet have added nothing to this article. You have in some instances removed citations and sourcing. If there are critics you want to add, then do so, and stop threatening to do so. I caution you to stop removing sourced material. If you want to restructure, do so. If others think you have wrecked a decent article, there's always reversion. Skywriter 11:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My claims are substantiated by the conent of the article. The only citations and sources I have removed were dead links. I have not removed any relevant sourced material either. Telling me to fix the article myself isn't helpful Skywriter, as the point of the tag is that I feel I need help to do so. Bibigon 14:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thread with constructive suggestion (finally)

Revision as of 15:58, 24 April 2006 Bibigon (Talk | contribs) (?Biography - Either source this, or it need to come out, given that's is based merely on Zinn's claims.) ? Older edit Revision as of 16:01, 24 April 2006 Bibigon (Talk | contribs) (?Biography - Citation needed, and removed two dead links.)

Bibigon, while we understand your intense need to express your personal opinion, that is not what garners respect. The following is not acceptable: based merely on Zinn's claims. The fact that you happen to dislike what a historian says, is no reason to dismiss or delete. Find another historian to comment if you wish to pursue it. The viewpoints of Wiki editors are penny a dozen. Inflation, you know. Skywriter 11:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make this personal. Having something based merely on Zinn's claims makes it a POV statement, namely, Zinn's POV. I'd prefer there to be an independent source collaborating it. Bibigon 14:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

POV refers to editors who inflict their unsourced viewpoint into articles. When you question whether or not Zinn and Berrigan flew to Hanoi and returned with the first POWs from the Vietnam War, you are not questioning Zinn, you are questioning verifiable history, easily checkable, widely available. Your demand is that other people do your homework. That is a tantrum. "I'll keep putting tags up unless my demands are met and I get my way." I don't care whether or not the tags stay up. It suffices to know they are up due to a tantrum. Skywriter 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pass. Bibigon 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be clear, Bibigon. What do you intend to say with the one word "Pass" --- that you do not intend to make the changes you think are necessary to remove the tags? Or that you want to keep the tags up yet wish to make no changes. Because you are alone in insisting tags stay up, ball in your court. Skywriter 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

When I say "pass", I intend to convey that I am done responding to your abusive comments, and am not particularly interested in repeating the points I've made in this talk page a half dozen times now. I do not intend to personally make the changes needed to remove the tags, no. That's what the tags are there for, to request that others help to make the needed changes. That's the entire point of having a tag. Bibigon 21:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you have a point of specific disagreement, raise the point, and it is debated. If and when consensus is not reached, then tags go up. If you want to argue that tags go up while you wait for someone to present an argument on your behalf, that suggests you don't like the subject of this article and have no constructive suggestions. The tags have been up for more than a month. Many changes have been made, including many that I disagree with, including, for example the removal of many quotes from the article without links to where they are if they are on Wikiquote. This is an outrageous abuse of discretion, and it is POV masking itself as "good" editing. I said nothing while this was in progress, awaiting the outcome. Now my voice will be heard.

For the last time, make the changes you think will improve this article. If you have none to make, then your disagreements are either non-existent or too vague to address and the tags come down. Tags are not left up indefinitely. They are taken down when there is no active debate. I see no active debate. Skywriter 21:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made specific suggestions, that you don't want to address them is not my concern at this point. I've reiterated exactly what I'm looking for here many times. It is not my responsibility to single handedly fix this article. That's why the tag is there, I'm requesting help. Bibigon 22:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You received help. Someone came in and restructured the article. I am sorry other editors aren't doing enough for you. If you have a vision, pursue it. If your ideas are clear in your own mind, then make it happen. You've taken your share of cheap shots-- "book report" etc. Here's your opportunity to make the changes you want. If others agree, they will remain. If it looks like a chop job, they won't. Meanwhile, no one is opposing change. The tags are now down, and will stay down until there is active debate. There is nothing in Wiki policy to suggest that tags are to be placed as flags for help from others. Skywriter 22:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read the tag? It specifically asks for help from others to fix the underlying issues... Progress towards fixing these issues is being made, and the tag will stay until the basic problems are fixed. Bibigon 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Bibigon, you mat want to read WP:POINT. I only observe editors trying to respond to your requests, but it seems that you are not amicable to fix this article yourself, neither to allow other editors to fix it. Adding a tag just to state your opinion about the article, but refusing to participate in fixing it is not conducive to collaboaration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Refusing to participate in fixing it? Where have I done that? Look at the edit history, I've worked extensively towards fixing it. skywriter has demanded that I fix it by myself, which I'm not particularly keen on, given that Wikipedia is collaborative. The reason I want the tag is because I'd like help in those efforts. Bibigon 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So the purpose of the tag is just to get more editors involved? There are a number of other wasy of doing so, like AID, peer review, even RfC. Frankly, improvement tags by themselves are mostly ignored by other editors. Would everybody be amenable to seeking added input directly instead of using a tag? -Will Beback 19:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Pinkville 19:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Skywriter 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sloppy Editing

The following is an example of extremely sloppy (I'm being nice here) editing that has gone on in the last month or two in the guise of improving this article. The edits were performed by one or two individuals who have expressed their contempt for the historian who is the subject of this article, and it now appears their contempt for the struggle for civil rights. (One went so far to remove the word 'historic' from the phrase 'struggle for civil rights'. To that person, I say: you don't think it was historic? You should have been there. Better still, you should have experienced Jim Crow first hand. Then you would understand.) The following was moved from the article proper to a quotation area, then deleted entirely. This is unmistakably a point of view edit performed by someone who is hostile to the civil rights movement and the widely acknowledged role of John Lewis. Zinn was present as a reporter and historian when the following transpired and it is contemptible that it has been removed. While this deletion would be deeply appreciated by modern day Klansmen, it is offensive to those who view the Klan as terorists. It is offensive also because it narrows the range of viewpoints, a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Do you have a point here? With regards to improving the article? Bibigon 14:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations


+
+ In that same chapter, Zinn speaks of John Lewis who has represented Georgia's Fifth District, including Atlanta, in Congress since 1986. [12]
+
+ Zinn wrote: "At the great Washington March of 1963, the chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, John Lewis, speaking to the same enormous crowd that heard Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream," was prepared to ask the right question: "Which side is the federal government on?" That sentence was eliminated from his speech by organizers of the March to avoid offending the Kennedy Administration. But Lewis and his fellow SNCC workers had experienced, again and again, the strange passivity of the national government in the face of Southern violence, strange, considering how often this same government had been willing to intervene outside the country, often with overwhelming force. [13]
+
+ "John Lewis and SNCC had reason to be angry. John had been beaten bloody by a white mob in Montgomery as a Freedom Rider in the spring of 1961. The federal government had trusted the notoriously racist Alabama police to protect the Riders, but done nothing itself except to have FBI agents take notes. Instead of insisting that blacks and whites had a right to ride the buses together, the Kennedy Administration called for a "cooling-off period," a moratorium on Freedom Rides. ... [14]
+
+ "The white population could not possibly be unaffected by those events --some whites more stubborn in their defense of segregation, but others beginning to think in different ways. And the black population was transformed, having risen up in mass action for the first time, feeling its power, knowing now that if the old order could be shaken it could be toppled." [15]


+

Skywriter 11:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected the page. Please do not revert each other. Instead try to find a consensus on this talk page. -Will Beback 00:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Several people have repeatedly tried to reach consensus with user who does not state a course of action other than to post tags in the hope that someone will rescue his point of view. User says he wants to restructure page. He has been encouraged to proceed and refuses to do so. Substantive changes were made to this page over the course of the last month. Skywriter 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation/tag

Please read the text carefully - especially given the previous edit wars, etc. The passage most recently tagged is: "and others, as Zinn suggests, whose stories are not often told in mainstream histories." If any citation needs to be added (and none does) it should be a citation to A People's History, not to an outside source. Pinkville 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misread the passage there. My mistake. Bibigon 19:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Pinkville 19:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Undergraduate Essay

I removed the decidedly unscholarly reference recently added to the article. I don't think - with the wealth of scholarly sources on Zinn, A People's History, US history, etc. - that we need to resort to third year undergraduate essays for perspective on this topic. Pinkville 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

Why does it matter how he self identifies exactly? I'm sure there are African Americans who don't self identify as African American. It doesn't make it any less factually correct. When articles identify someone as being Jewish in the intro, it refers to their ethnicity, not their religion. (Which is why articles on Christians don't say so in the intro unless it's otherwise relevant.) Bibigon 16:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As a character in My Beautiful Laundrette said, for God's sake I'm not a professional Pakistani! Neither is Zinn a professional Jew. His ethnic background is mentioned in the biographical section of the article, but it shouldn't be in the lead any more than Barbara Tuchman should be described as a German-American historian or Ronald Reagan as an Irish-American President. And your point about African Americans, besides being dubious at best, works against you - how many Wikipedia biographies use the form: Person X is an African American widget-designer. Check some names on the list, if you like. African American is added when it's directly relevant, as in: Person X was the first African American widget-designer. Pinkville 17:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not the case universally. Most articles about Jewish people on Wiki identify them as being Jewish, regardless of their religious beliefs, and the relevance of the religion. It's a fact about the guy. We're an encyclopedia. Bibigon 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact of Zinn's Jewish background is mentioned in the article, appropriately in the section dealing with his family background. His jewishness doesn't really have any great significance on his work so it needn't be mentioned more prominantly. Pinkville 02:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Bibigon-- Have you reviewed Category:Historians_of_the_United_States and determined that it is traditional to identify historians by ethnicity in the lead? If your answer is yes, please cite a multitude of examples. (I haven't seen it and I work on articles about historians.) Zinn's ethnicity is identified in this article-- as the son of immigrants. Please show why you think his ethnicity is of greater importance than that of other American historians, and explain why you think his particular ethnic heritage should be singled out when the ethnicity of other historians are not prominent in the lead in articles about them in Wikipedia. Please show how many of the historians on Wikipedia have their ethnicity identifed in the lead, or even identified at all.

Please explain why Jewish historians should be singled out and not Irish or Czech or Italian, or French or Chinese historians? What exactly makes Jewish historians stand out in your mind that you want to repeat the ethnicity throughout the article. It looks like redundancy to me that should be deleted. Why is Jewish meaningful to you and not these other ethnicities? Have you worked on the articles of other historians and insisted on repeating their ethnicities throughout the article? Were you successful? If so, please tell us which ones. We'd like to go look.

I have worked on the articles of various historians on Wikipedia, and am stumped as to their ethnicity. Would you, for example, like to help figure out the ethnicity of Archibald Dunning or Henry Steele Commager or Samuel Eliot Morison or E. Merton Coulter or Howard K. Beale, C. Vann Woodward and/or Charles A. Beard? How about W.L. Fleming? These are all prominent American historians and their ethnicity is not known on Wikipedia. Would you like to help figure out their ethnicity and add it to their articles on Wikipedia? You seem to have a strong interest in this area and the articles on these historians need work. Thanks. Skywriter 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's where you can engage your fascination with ethnicity, Bibigon. Let us know what you find. I was just looking at the lists and lists of historians, all without ethnicity identified. You could make a real contribution here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_historians Skywriter 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism links

I removed the following link in the Criticism section, since it's actually a review by Bob Cheeks of a book (Howard Zinn: A Radical American Vision) about Zinn, rather than a self-sufficient analysis of Zinn (however much Cheeks takes the opportunity to attack Zinn). As such, it should only be cited as a criticism of author, Davis Joyce, and not Zinn.

I accessed the link on 19 June 2006 to confirm its contents.

As for the other two links listed under Criticism Of Howard Zinn, the first (the book by Davis Joyce) doesn't appear to be a critique of Zinn, and the link to Kazin's article is a blind alley. If someone could confirm the appropriateness of citing Joyce's work as "criticism of Zinn" I won't remove it. And I'll replace the link to Kazin myself. Pinkville 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, Kazin's article is about A People's History and not about Zinn himself. The link makes more sense confined to the Wikipedia article on Zinn's History than it does to be included here. Pinkville 19:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascination with ethnicity and religiosity (again?)

(diff) (hist) . . Howard Zinn‎; 05:42 . . Bibigon (Talk | contribs) (No, we haven't had this discussion. We discussed mentioning it in the intro. It's a fact that he's Jewish. It just is. You can't hide that.)

I would like to know what is the basis for Bibigon's fascination with Jewishness and what is behind his comment "You can't hide that." Bibigon appears to be on a crusade that borders on anti-semitism in his chronic insistence that the word Jew or Jewish be included numerous times in this article. Bibigon seems to have no other interest in this article other than to insist that the word Jew appear repeatedly. I would like to know where other historians are referred to repeatedly on Wikipedia as Catholic or Protestant or Mormon, even when they may not be practitioners in any of those religions. I would like to see even one example that has been accepted by other editors.

On this page, I have invited Bibigon to demonstrate where the ethnicity and religiosity of other American historians have been emphasized on Wikipedia, and he has failed to respond to that invitation.

As has been discussed, Zinn is not a religious person, and does not identify as a Jewish writer, nor does he write on Jewish subjects. His parents' ethnicity has been established in this article. I want to know why Bibigon wants the equivalent of having Zinn wear a star of David armband, similar to what Nazis insisted Jews wear in World War II shortly before they were taken by train to concentration camps.

I have previously invited Bibigon to assist in tracking down the ethnicity of other American historians because most of them have not been identified by any ethnicity at all. Bibigon has not taken up this invitation yet remains obsessed with ascribing this particular historian with a religiosity for which no one but Bibigon attributes to him.

When Bibigon writes venomously, "You can't hide that"-- I'd like to know what is behind this passion. What is and should be a matter of a routine copyedit to remove redundancy, Bibigon turns into an edit war, time and again. I would like this to stop. Bibigon's obsession with Jewishness is suspect. Skywriter 10:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to this nonsense, but if you'd like, I'll give you a few other Jewish people who are identified as being Jewish in spite of it having nothing to do with why they are notable. Alan Greenspan, Russ Feingold, Lawrence Summers, Noam Chomsky, Thomas Friedman, etc. Bibigon 14:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not identification once-- it is numerous times. Yours appears to be obsession. Skywriter 16:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Bibigon 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bibigon, I have made the case that you are singling out Zinn in ways other historians are not singled out on Wikipedia or elsewhere. You have failed to reply. I ask you again why your sole interest in this article is to place the word Jew in it numerous times. I believe you have crossed the line and that your interest is not in improving this article but to Jew-bait. Skywriter 16:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. When you restate your question in a civil manner, I may respond. Bibigon 16:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you seem to thrive on revert warring, I am going to leave it for now. I continue to find your editorial comment "You can't hide that" (when your reference to that means Jew) both startling, as described above, and still unexplained. Your insistence on three references to Jew in this article is excessive, particularly when the subject lacks a close identification with either the religion or the cultural identity. Skywriter 19:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wowee skiwriter, you have to chill. It's not a joke accusing someone of anti-sematism, it's a pretty serious ad hominem attack. Meanwhile, bibigon has done nothing that can be equated with Nazism, and to bring up the comparison could only be seen as trivialzing the holocaust (an anti-semetic opinion in its own right). Meanwhile, since he's commented on everything else re: the Zinn article, it's clear that he's not just jew baiting. Additionally, your refusal to acknowledge Zinn's jewishness while you continue to be an open admirer seems pretty anti-semetic as well. -Jason 69.118.222.77 03:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in User:69.118.222.77, today calling yourself, uh "Jason". Perhaps you intended to say anti-semitic? I notice you don't visit Wikipedia often but pop in anonymously to take one side or another in an argument. This is your first visit to this page and without missing a beat, jump right in to call begin name-calling. Your calling me "anti-semetic" is noted. I'm sure bibigon appreciates your, uh, support despite bibigon's failure to defend his own comment --"You can't hide that" while insisting that Zinn be identified three times in this article as a Jew. I am not surprised bibigon does not defend that statement under the signature for which he is known on this page. Your statement is factually false as this article acknowledges Zinn's ethnic heritage, and also in the quotation section, his views on religion. The question under discussion is this-- how many times on one page do you call someone a Jew when that person is not religious. Oh, and by the way, for the record, bibigon, in case you are not following carefully, I conceded leaving the third reference to Jew on the page before this comment. That was before bigigon restarted edit warring. Skywriter 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

bibigon-- are you unaware of Wikipedia rules against aggression? If you believe a fact requires citation, it is policy to add a note requesting the citation, not to revert it. Skywriter 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a fact worthy of being on the page, because it's so vague and general as to be almost useless. However, if you can cite a source for it, then I'll let the issue stand, simply because I don't have the time or energy to put up with you on a relatively trivial issue such as this. Bibigon 05:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing citations, demanding citations

one user has twice demanded a citation and when three were provided, based on the books and speeches by the subject of the article, that user then removed the citations.

here's the sentence in question: For 50 years, he has campaigned against the killing of civilians in time of war. (three books were added to this sentence following previous demand for citation. user removed the books, claiming original research. I fear user has distorted view of what is original research. Will someone clarify this? Skywriter 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Skywriter 18:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of desperation, I post my question here

I am interested how I can email or mail a question to Zinn.

The question goes something like this:

Why does Zinn believe that the American people are being decieved by the politicians and elite in the United States?

Zinn and many other authors on the left have this reoccuring theme that the American people are being decieved by the media elite and the politicians. This theme is throughout Zinn's book "The People's History of the United States".

I think the reality is just the opposite: Americans delude themselves, and American's politicians and media elite are only a reflection of this delusion. Americans want to believe in their hearts that they are benign. They ignore and even ruthlessly attack inconvient facts which question this mythology. Americans are a bloodthirsty people with a shameful history. Americans should not blame their leaders, they are only a reflection of American's own delusions, we should blame ourselves.

But when an author is peddling an ideology, whether that author is on the right or the left, you don't want to tell your customer who you are peddling the ideology too that they are a murderous people. If you said this, no one will buy what you are peddling.

So the right peddles America's righteousness, and the left peddles the American people's righteousness too, but plays the "class card": demonizing the leaders and elite in the society. The left tells Americans they are only decieved victims of an elite.

Anyway, I am interesed how Zinn would answer my question. If anyone knows how to contact him, please let me know.

Signed: Travb (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zinn believe that the Americans are being decieved by the politicians and elite because they have been, continue to be and most likely always will be. Many people, typically conservatives/the right/republicans/whatever, believe that everything the U.S. does is somehow justified, howeveer horrible these actions might be. There are other people, typically liberals/the left/democrats/whatever, who beleive that there are many, many things that the U.S has done and continues to do that are reprehensible and in no way justified. People of the latter ilk are willing to see the blood on their own hands to varying degrees. People of the former ilk are either delighted by the blood on their own hands or they believe that it's somehow justified for being there. Regardless of the truth factor of whether the "people" are deceived or not (I think clearly this is true, but think what you want), I think that reading "A People's History of the United States" can make people aware of the brutality of America and they can decide for themselves if they are part of the aggressor/oppressor or part of the oppressed/deceived. The truthful answer for 99% of Americans is that they belong in both groups. It kills me how people don't quibble over the veracity of any of Zinn's claims and facts, just the interpretation of them. So go write your own book which makes no distinction between working-Joe-type-Americans and a war-profiteering, blood-thirsty war general or a CEO of a corporation that uses sweatshop labor in foreign countries. Then we'll see if people quibble over interpretation, or whether they'll question the factual basis for your claims that would paint such a ridiculous picture.--Hraefen Talk 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, Zinn hasn't addressed this question before, anyone know?
My question revolves around the concept of "National guilt"
Actually in retrospect, there are certain leftist who share my view of national guilt to some extent Ward Churchill and his little Eichman speech is the most infamous.
Of course there is a difference between "working-Joe-type-Americans and a war-profiteering, blood-thirsty war general or a CEO of a corporation ", there is much different culpability (guilt).
I am not to concerned about apportioning guilty as much as I am concerned about how the US sees itself. This is were I believe Zinn is wrong: Of course Americans are decieved by the politicians, this is not were my major concern lies. My major concern is the foundations of these myths about Americans goodness. I think an entire society with free press cannot be decieved by a small elite so effectively. I keep thinking about the book Hitler's Willing Executioners which exposes the myth that only the elite and SS where involved in the extermination of the Jews. The book argues that Hitler could not have been so effective in killing Jews without the majority of German support. I argue that American myths and American wars are just the same. American leaders throughout history could not have caused so much death and destruction without the consensus of the American people. The majority of Americans selectively ignore and selectively interpret certain historical events because they want to be decieved. They want to downplay certain events which make America look bad and focus on other events that make American look good.
In otherwords, even if 280 million plus Americans picked up Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" today, and read it, the majority would disgard it, because it threatens a belief system that they want to believe in, that the media and the politicans to not create, but foster.
People's History is a great book, but I think Zinn's theory about Americans being decieved is wrong.
Anyway, I am wondering if Zinn has ever tackled this question. Travb (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(NOTE: Interesting take, Travb I tend to agree with your insight that the politicians are a reflecton of the people. But it's an even more challenging observation that all Americans are deceived. Politics in the tme that Zinn came up (the Great Depression) of course, WERE more class bound, as so many people were out of work (25% at the height of the Depression). This was the flowering of the "proleterian writer" (early John Steinbeck, Nelson Algren, Mike Gold, John Dos Passos, etc. It would have been interesting to have an exchange, like someone like you asking a question like that, and someone like me and others who are familar with Zinn's work and have seen him recently giving a lecture, trying to answer that question, but alas, I don't think that is possible on this forum, as one editor seems determined to gut anything that might actually help people understand Zinn. But thanks, because you've got me thinking.... From now on, though, I will use a different forum as I'm not going to waste my time writing and see it destroyed. I expected to see the work challenged, and modified (to ensure neturality, which is right and proper, but not always easy to do when you're writing about someone, particularly in the "heat" of just having reacquatinted yourself with the person's philosophy.... Robert Dalziel)

[edit] Ward Churchill addresses the issue

As usual, unfortunatly I found a partial answer to the question myself. I still have not found any article by Zinn which discusses this issue.

But Ward Churchill's essay discusses the issue, and his argument is surprisingly the same as mine:

See: User_talk:Travb/Archive_7#Ward_Churchill_addresses_the_issue—Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 July 2006

I've been reading this, but it's not really appropriate for this talk page since it doesn't refer directly to the article or an issue arising from the article. To answer your questions, you could probably contact Zinn directly if you like, though probably a better approach would be to read his works. If you want to start a general discussion with such comments as you've made, you could take them to my or others' talk pages and see what happens. :~) Pinkville 11:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the full Talk:Howard_Zinn#Ward_Churchill_addresses_the_issue to my archived talk page. Travb (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel J. Flynn

[edit] Criticism of Zinn and A people's History of the United States

In response to the paraphrased question of whether the United States has done more bad than good worldwide, Zinn responded on Dennis Prager's radio show, "Probably more bad than good. We've done some good, of course; there's no doubt about that. But we have done too many bad things in the world." [16]

Zinn states in an interview published well after the release of his seminal work, "I wanted my writing of history and my teaching of history to be a part of social struggle. I wanted to be a part of history and not just a recorder and teacher of history. So that kind of attitude towards history, history itself as a political act, has always informed my writing and my teaching." Thus, according to critics, Howard Zinn is more social activist than by-th-book historian.[17]

The single largest criticism of Zinn's Magnum Opus is that the book contains not one single footnote in the text. There is a works cited section, and Zinn does directly attribute some works in text.[18]

There are those who disagree with Zinn's alternative approach to history, claiming that he makes no effort to overcome his own personal biases, pointing to Zinn's statement that, "Objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.” [19]

Zinn's view of history as a "social aim," as opposed to disinterested reporting of the past rallys his critics. In essaying an attempt at his social bull's eye, Zinn, claim critics, often makes claims which are diametrically opposed to reality. For example, he claims that, despite efforts to curb violent crime, such as aggressive law enforcement tactics and President Clinton’s crime bill, “violent crime continues to increase.” This claim is wrong. According to a Department of Justice report released in September of 2002, the violent crime rate has been cut in half since 1993. [20]

"Unemployment grew in the Reagan years,” Zinn claims. This is demonstrably true, according to some critics. Statistics clearly evince that the opposite is true. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in his first month in office. By January of 1989, the rate had declined to 5.4 percent. One critic, Dan Flynn, posits one explanation for Zinn's seemingly erroneous statements regarding Ronald Reagan. He states, Reagan’s free market polices were anathema to Marxists like Zinn. Upset at the pleasant way things turned out—Reagan’s policies unleashed an economy that continuously grew from the fall of 1982 until the summer of 1990—historians have preferred to rewrite history.[21]

In another instance, Zinn draws high levels of equivalence between the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent internationally supported, U.S. let invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban when he says, “It seemed that the United States was reacting to the horrors perpetrated by the terrorists against innocent people in New York by killing other innocent people in Afghanistan."[22]

Critics further assail his "one bullet theory" that greed motivates nearly all historical events. Regarding the European foray into America, Zinn states, “Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private profit.” Critics further impugn his credibility based on his opinion of the American Revolution that, “certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership. When we look at the American Revolution this way, it was a work of genius, and the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries. They created the most effective system of national control devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the advantages of combining paternalism with command."[23]

Zinn begins to sound like a broken record, given his propensity to highlight as American politicians' driving motivation the overarching desire to abrogate class warfare, according to some critics.

Regarding slavery, he states, "It is money and profit, not the movement against slavery, that was uppermost in the priorities of the men who ran the country," and, “Class consciousness was overwhelmed during the Civil War."[24]

Referring to World War I, he opines, "American capitalism needed international rivalry—and periodic war—to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor," to more effectively "[supplant] the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements." World War I, according to Zinn, was an international effort to quell class unrest, claim some detractors.[25]

About World War II, Zinn holds that, "Quietly, behind the headlines in battles and bombings, American diplomats and businessmen worked hard to make sure that when the war ended, American economic power would be second to none in the world. United States business would penetrate areas that up to this time had been dominated by England. The Open Door Policy of equal access would be extended from Asia to Europe, meaning that the United States intended to push England aside and move in." Zinn, claim critics, forgets that in spite of defeating Nazi Germany and fascist Japan, the U.S. rebuilt those two nations into what are today two of its chiefest economic rivals worldwide.[26]

Pundits assert that the "oppressor/oppressed" lense through which he views all historical events poorly informs his subsequent judgments, for example leaving out other agents who may have played significant roles as events unfolded. Critics also claim that Zinn neglects treatment of certain subject matters when it is rhetorically convenient. For example, he curiously avoids the matter of violence in and among Native American tribe members.[27]


This section above needs a rewrite. It looks mostly like a copy/paste from one site, the POV of Daniel J. Flynn. If Flynn said it, attribute it to Flynn. I'll post some suggestions below in a few minutes. --Pixelface 04:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prager out

This phrasing removed because it says nothing of the content of the discussion or dispute. When Zinn appeared on conservative talk-show host Dennis Prager's radio show, Prager disagreed with Zinn on the terms "massacre" and "annihilate" when referring to indigenous peoples of the Americas. [28] Mere and content-free disagreement is not grounds for inclusion in encyclopedic article. Skywriter 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of commercial ad from lead

There was a commercial ad (!) for a transcript and CD of a 10-year-old interview in the lead of this article. ((just send in twentyfive bucks...)) The ad is now moved to the Online Video section. It may not even belong there but for now, that works better than what was. Skywriter 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of another ad from body text

The following was removed, along with a link to Mr. Berman's web page, which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. The following was also incorrectly linked to Amy Goodman's interview. This (and the link to the Goodman interview) was removed from the section: Online interviews and video

(December, 2005)http://www.bnpg.org/danielberman.html Daniel Berman] Host of "A Time to Review" on Brookline-TV speaks with Howard Zinn, currently on DVD.

(2006) Daniel Berman is also the Executive Producer of the film "A People's History: A Conversation with Howard Zinn", which is a Worldly Film Production.

If the advocate of the above wants to provide an ISBN number, it can go in another section. This section is for links to online interviews, audio and video. Skywriter 02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crock Stamp

Yes, this article receives my official Crock Stamp for it's excellence in masked POV and lack of a coherent criticism section. Great work CCCPedians! --Haizum 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A classic maneuver is to create a token criticism section that is rebutted within itself. This article offers a perfect example of that. --Haizum 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded.Mzmadmike 17:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For years, I have listened to amateur critics of Howard Zinn complain about this Criticism section. Through the years, those with this axe to grind have failed to come up with any material beyond the two articles quoted. Is this because no other negatively critical articles exist? Or is it because those with the personal point of view in opposition to what Zinn stands for have not looked for or found negatively critical articles in the professional literature about historians? Have you found nothing to support your viewpoint? Skywriter 17:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal loose

What can be done about this vandal?

User contributions From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For Yankeefandoug (Talk | Block log | Logs)

(Newest | Oldest) View (Newer 50) (Older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

03:40, 15 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Howard Zinn (→Early life) 03:36, 15 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Howard Zinn (→Iraq) 03:36, 15 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Howard Zinn (→Early life) 22:02, 14 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Howard Zinn (→Early life) 22:02, 14 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Howard Zinn (→Iraq) 21:31, 14 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Howard Zinn (→Iraq) 21:27, 14 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Howard Zinn (→Iraq) 21:19, 14 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Howard Zinn (→Early life)

68.183.27.160 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization by political belief

  • Folks have been populating the Category:American liberals with a wide assortment of American people, and now including Howard Zinn. I took off the cat once but it was replaced; I'm bringing it here rather than edit-warring.
I really think it's wildly appropriate to label Zinn as an "American liberal"; Zinn, if anything, is a radical, and his article makes that clear when describing his political philosophy ("Zinn's philosophy incorporates ideas from Marxism, anarchism, socialism, and social democracy.") (And note that Zinn has both Category:American socialists and American liberals cats, and Category:American socialists is subcategorized under American liberals!) If his philosophy is a "mix" then he should receive all categories equivalently. However, I think this sort of thing shows real problems with how the category for "American liberals" is being applied, and perhaps more generally with the categories for political ideology, and urge discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#people by political belief. --lquilter 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Zinn is critical of liberals. There is plenty of documentation for that. Skywriter 06:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism"

I think this section should be removed altogether (and I would argue the same in any biographical article) as nonsensical. If there is any content presently in the section that is worth keeping (a dubious but arguable position) then it should be incorporated into the appropriate section(s) in the rest of the article. It is absurd to speak of "criticism" of a person, rather than criticism of her/his works, ideas, etc., though I know that many Wikipedia biographical articles include such sections... Nevertheless, they are inherently illogical, they are lightning rods for edit wars, and they run counter to intellectual sense. Opposition to Zinn's politics, or his approach in historiography, or his ideas/actions generally should be considered in the relevant contexts (e.g. in the article on A People's History... or in relation to other matters, and not in isolation. I wouldn't, for example, expect a "Criticism" section in the articles on Antonio Gramsci, or John Kerry, or Adolf Hitler. Pinkville 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is a criticism section in the Gramsci article. Bruxism 12:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, there isn't. Criticism of his thought is incorporated into a section on his influence - a very different concept from criticism of a person. Pinkville 12:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that substituting honest criticism for personal attack "balances" a biographical article is beneath contempt. In the case of Michael Kazin, this is not surprising. Kazin specializes in cheap shots and personal attacks. His sloppiness is legendary. For example, in a short book review, he managed to take liberties with two historical facts that can be seen here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901175.html Hard-core ideologue, Flynn is not even a historian. Another writer on this Talk page commented that this "criticism" section sets up straw men and purports to knock them down. I concur. Where is the principled criticism? Skywriter 13:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas?

By the way, more important than the existence of a criticism section, the article as it stands now does not include any section on the significance of Zinn's ideas and political philosophy. There's lots of interesting biographical detail and trivia (like the list of the books for which he wrote a preface), but nothing about his lasting significance and an analysis of his politics. I gather from this discussion that there used to be a section on this. I'll come back to this, but I don't have a lot of time right now to work on it myself. Some of his works include his analysis of the role of social action and ordinary folks in social change. That needs to be added here. What else? Ideas, anyone? Bruxism 12:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus

The focus of the criticism section is on the individuals other than Zinn. It is not necessary and indeed bogs down this article by including vast amounts of unrelated material to this biographical sketch of Zinn. I intend to delete unrelated material. Feel free to take this material to the pages of the individuals where it is relevant. Skywriter 02:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Some folks went far afield writing various essays within this article on subjects unrelated to the topic at hand. Although lengthy, that material also lacked references. It's now been cleaned up. Skywriter 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I intend to see you pulled off this article as you are definitely anti-Zinn (as opposed to someone seeking neutrality or a neutral tone).

Someone like you, promoting ignorance, is the reason Wikipedia has problems being accepted. The histories of these people, as critics, are entirely relevant to any discussion of Zinn and his philosophy of history, but you can't see that as ... what? You are powerstruck by your Wikipedia editor status?

You are genuinely one person who CANNOT see the forest, but for the trees.

Keep your prejudice OUT OF the article. Someone's trying to EXPLAIN who this man is.


Robert Dalziel 15 April 2007

[edit] Who is the Skywriter who destroys people's work?

Who are you to destroy someone's work? You don't CLEAN UP someone's work, you act as judge, jury and executioner.

How does one go about appealing this anti-Zinn attack by someone, in the name of impartiality.

Is your idea to keep people ignorant of Howard Zinn?

What do you know about Zinn or Silber? I take it, very little.

Your CLEAN UP is asinine and some kind of right-wing power trip, and you make this article almost worthless.

Who are you? Besides someone promoting ignorance?

Are you the person who hacks into GOOGLE to link the search web to anti-Zinn statement?

You need to be curbed, whoever you are.


[edit] Skywriter's edits in the Liberal Criticism section

Very nice, Skywriter, how when Google goes through its latest sweep, the slug line on Zinn will once again be Kazin's negative comment. Almost like you planned it that way.

And why did you leave the second paragraph in the section, about Zinn's being invesitgated by the FBI. You've ripped it out of context so it makes NO SENSE, only that it probably bolsters your negative take on the man, since many Americans, not understanding the context, will take that as a knock on Zinn.

You have no right touching this article. User:Robert Dalziel

Dear Robert: If you think Skywriter is anti-Zinn, you really need to read a bit deeper. You also really need to consider your own position better.Mzmadmike 17:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Resistance

Moorlock and I had a wee chat about the basis of the added category Tax Resisters. There's an old cite circa 1968 and then this recent one, which works for me:

The category is "American tax resisters" and is meant to include those people who have practiced the tactic of tax :resistance, without regard to how long ago or how many "incidents". (And anyway, he's not averse to putting in :an occasional plug for Thoreauvian tax :resistance even today.) -Moorlock 00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Skywriter 03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FBI

I removed the unsubstantiated, unreferenced paragraph on the FBI recently added to the section on Zinn critics, because it doesn't belong there and it is unsourced. There certainly can be a section on FBI surveillance but it can not be opinion. Claims must be sourced, and the source can not be ourselves.Skywriter 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note re "Critical reception" (formerly "Criticism of Zinn")

I moved 2 paragraphs of text added recently in a series of edits by anon. user(s) into so-called "invisible text" with the following explanation:

"All of the following text reads like someone's personal mini-essay; for inclusion in the article, it needs to be written more concisely, preferably quoting or paraphrasing the sources consulted, with full attribution and citations."

It may or may not be possible to salvage something useful from what was written, but it would need to be far more concise -- and adhere to NPOV, OR and ATT.

I hope that this section will prove more useful and encyclopedic under it's new neutral heading, which should invite a more balanced examination of the subject. Cgingold 13:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed section on Flynn due to insistence by someone --that the only identification of who Flynn is-- be repeatedly removed from his diatribe. Flynn is a minor player, a non-academic who attracts attention to himself by attacking a long and bizarre list of famous people. We don't know if sockpuppets are messing with this article but we do know that individuals who have no history on Wikipedia because they lack a user name are pushing POV hard. We do not know for example that the most recent edits concerning Flynn are not by Flynn himself. We tire of the game-playing.Skywriter 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I am attempting to bring some order out of the chaos that was the external links. Before proceeding with the next step, which seems quite obvious to me, I thought I would broach it here first so as not to cause unneccessary upset. There is a gigantic collection of links to Democracy Now! programs that really does not need to be here as it is simply copied from another website. I think there should be at most a handful of links to DN programs. The rest of the links should also be pared down, leaving only the more notable items, if possible. Cgingold 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Democracy Now articles are some of the most revealing and I object to the removal of those references. Amy Goodman reveals information rarely seen elsewhere and deletion of references to Democracy Now removes a viewpoint worth preserving. If there are specific ones that you think should go, please post them here and try for consensus. Thanks. Skywriter 01:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Sun-Times article

This is the recent edit by User:AbbotSoule&Hoyt that I removed from the article so it could be sorted out:

In an article in the <i>[[Chicago Sun-Times]]</i><ref>Zinn, Howard. "America's Blinders: Until we face up to our nation's historic sins and arrogance, says historian Howard Zinn, we will always follow foolish leaders down the path to foolish wars." <i>Chicago Sun-Times</i>, April 16, 2006, p. B1.</ref>, Zinn noted that his work continued that of Charles Beard in providing a Marxist interpretation for history in the United States continuing the explanation of the historic class struggle.

It looks like there are two useful bits of text here, though they don't particularly belong together. However, the paraphrase re Charles Beard is slightly garbled -- it would be helpful to have the actual wording from the article to sort it out properly. Also, is "America's Blinders" the title of the article? It sort of looks like that's the case, but it's not clear. (And if not, then what is the title?) Cgingold 22:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across the Sun-Times piece (that is the title) while trying to clean up the Foner cite (go back to the original review text rather than a cite to a cite of the original). And, yes, I was in a hurry in summarising what the article said. Sorry about that. AbbotSoule&Hoyt 18:19, 4 July 2007.

[edit] Inviting discussion of edits/reverts by User:Thoughtman

To "Thoughtman": I see from your "User contributions" page that you've only been editing (at least, under that User Name) since June 27. Perhaps you simply haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with how to participate in the collaborative editing process here on Wikipedia.

Nonethless, you are trying my patience. I asked you twice to explain your concerns on the Talk Page, and I also asked you not to just revert my edit without discussion. You ignored my request, and reverted anyway. And you posted the following note on my personal talk page, rather than posting it here on this talk page:

MLK and RFK were major figures and you need to read the criteria of what the difference between a anti-war activist and anti-iraq war activist are. the criteria is located at the top of the anti-iraq war activist catagory page Thoughtman 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, you didn't tell me anything new -- you just repeated what you had already said in your edit summaries. And, once again, you presumed to instruct me "to read the criteria" for the category in question -- as if I had not already done so (several times, in fact). In short, I am still awaiting your explanation of how exactly Howard Zinn fails to meet the criteria.

On the other issue: you apparently didn't even notice that I changed the word "major" to "significant", in light of the differing interpretations that various readers might attach to the word "major". In other words, I took your concerns into consideration and changed it to a word which I think is less open to widely contrasting interpretations. If you actually have a problem with the word "significant", you're gonna have to make a very persuasive case here -- not just with me, but with all of the other editors as well. Cgingold 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what TV series in 2007?

I have removed the following paragraph to talk page because it does not appear to be true. If a series is scheduled to run this year, there'd be a lot more PR about it. The linky has been absent any new information for a long time. I suspect an option was taken and came to naught, as so often happens with up to 96% of options taken to make films.

removed: Zinn was a consultant to the six-part documentary A People's History of the United States [29], a television series produced by Alvin H. Perlmutter. According to the documentary's website, the series is expected to be broadcast in 2007.

If there's any news about this, it can go back to article. Otherwise its predictive value is greatly lessened.Skywriter 13:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that a documentary based on "A People's History" will be "broadcast in 2007" is still listed in the article. Given that it's 2008, someone may want to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] With respect to the external links section...

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