Talk:Grover Furr/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Biased

All academics who are critical towards capitalism, United States and/or leftists are slandered in English Wikipedia. But people such as Anne Applebaum, who said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was worse than Hitler, are not labeled as "conpiracionists", "revisionists" or any of that. That's quite interesting. Are there only left wing "revisionists" in the anglophone bubble? Dornicke (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No. To the contrary, I get the impression - from sources in English too - that far more English-speaking crackpots are right-wing than left-wing. See the Encyclopedia of American Loons, for example. But the euphemism "critical towards capitalism" for Stalinism is really cute. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I also suspect - strongly - that there are more cranks on the right wing than the left. That doesn't mean that pro-"left" fringe theorists don't exist. Besides, plenty of leftists oppose Stalinism too. In any case, we follow the rules at WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

"Furr has praised revisionist historians such as J. Arch Getty on the Soviet Union and scholars such as R. W. Davies, Mark Tauger, Stephen G. Wheatcroft on the Holodomor genocide question." doesn't belong in the lead of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarise, whereas Furr's support for these individuals is not mentioned in the article bar in the lead and even if it was it would not necessarily mean it should be mentioned in the lead. 31.187.2.27 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

His views regarding other researchers seems lead-worthy to me. And although you didn't mention it here, the fringe aspect definitely is, per WP:FRINGE. Whatever is missing from the body can easily be added there. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is his views on Getty et al leadworthy? It's not at all what he is known for and the fact that it's not present in the body of the article speaks to its non-importance. Getty et al aren't "fringe" by any meaningful definition of that word. 31.187.2.39 (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be the place to promote anticommunist bullshit either... Dornicke (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Dornicke, I agree. I added it myself, but I now think it was a bad move. For one. Getty et al. are not revisionist historians. Actually, John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr says Furr is "a historical revisionist who 'lauded creation of Communist regimes' in Europe and Asia because 'millions of workers are exploited, murdered, tortured, oppressed by capitalism'", not Getty et al. who are legitimate and respected historians and scholars. Davide King (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

While it is true that we hold to NPOV, it's best not to agree with a comment where a user casted WP:ASPERSIONS on their fellow editors by implying they were promoting "anticommunist bullshit" (which conflates communism and Stalinism, incidentally). Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the bibliography

For multiple years there's been a dispute over the size of the article's bibliography. A RfC done months back didn't seem to generate much input beyond those already involved in the dispute, hence this new request. My argument boils down to believing my proposed bibliography is not inordinately long nor against Wikipedia's rules. I think if size is an issue (in terms of the article's height), the bibliography could either be formatted differently or there could be an option to "hide" some or all of the bibliography unless a user clicks on a button to reveal the full contents. --Ismail (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Arguably what we have now is too long and needs citation. Lets start by providing sources which reference the ones we already have before doing more. Not everything an author writes is notable, we need it to be talked about by a reliable third party to include it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "citation" in the context of a bibliography? Do you mean providing a link to each book's WorldCat entry? --Ismail (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• The size of the bibliography looks perfectly fine to me. The major pressing issue with this article is that the lede is way too small and there is almost no content on his actual biography. Expand those areas rather than cut others down. ~ HAL333 22:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean the size of my proposed bibliography, or the size of the bibliography as it stands? Wikipedia isn't a book; it is entirely possible to have a detailed bibliography alongside a longer biography (if there's enough sources for that) and more substantial lede. There's no need to sacrifice one of these things for the benefit of another, unless the bibliography contained hundreds of books and articles or something. --Ismail (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Horowitz

Horowitz's opinion of Furr was included in the Controversy section but only using material written by Horowitz. It's not surprising and shouldn't be considered a controversy unless reported by independent sources. —PaleoNeonate – 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Furr's profession

To reiterate what I said before, Furr is NOT a historian. Furr does not hold a degree in history. He does not claim to be a historian.

His work is negationist because it is universally decried as being illsourced pseudohistory. In fact, other marxist historians who hold sympathetic views on the Soviet Union still disassociate themselves from Furr (eg. Moshe Lewin, who has been criticized by Furr for stating that Stalin may have done something wrong). To say Furr is not a historian and not a negationist is equivilant to saying Irving is a historian.

Furr's work is unreliable, and not used by Marxists in academia, because other, much more reliable sources exist. BasedMises (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist and see also redirecting to fascists/neo-nazis

Anteosaurus magnificus (talk · contribs) Opening up discussion over this contended edit. May you further elaborate upon your reasons for this edit, and I will elaborate as to mine, so that we may perhaps reach a consensus of sorts regarding this issue?AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

David Irving is similar to Grover Furr (very). One is a historical revisionist/negationist. The other is just a negationist/revisionist, because he (Furr) is not even a historian.

Grover Furr is a conspiracy theorist. His work says that there is a massive conspiracy aimed at destroying communism, making things up to make communism look bad, and he often edges towards conspiracies.

Grover Furr's work is also not very reliable. He is not a historian, and distorts evidence to support his neo-stalinism. Much (and I mean MUCH) better historians exist for supporting Stalin. He completely disregards any sort of evidence, and instead creates conspiracies.

I am not going to look and see if you are a tankie, but it is important to note that his work is completely centred on capitalism and how some grand cabal is making up stuff about Stalin. Other Stalinist historians at least use evidence. BasedMises (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

BasedMises (talk · contribs) I'd prefer if you keep words intended as insults like "tankie" off of here, but considering how widespread it is as a term, whatever. I'd also prefer if you gave me time to respond before you revert my edit without the other editors (of which you were not one if I am correct, but I welcome your input, of course!) to respond. Firstly, one doesn't have to possess a degree to be a historical revisionist, he studies the history, now, if that is valid is a different question, of course, but he is a revisionist. To characterize Irving as similar to Furr is in my opinion quite false and I feel the facts bear me out. Furr is a Communist who interprets the historiography a bit differently, maybe too far at times and possibly falls for propaganda from the Soviet side of the argument. Irving is a racist, anti-semite, who believes in lizard people (I think he said something about the moon being an egg too?) and denies one of the largest genocides in human history for no reason other than his bigotry and neo-nazism. Furr isn't a racist or a bigot and his "conspiracy" isn't one of evil demons and jews and whatnot, he simply believes the actual enemies of the soviet state and communism (rightly or not) say some things he believes to be untrue, he doesn't posit some grand conspiracy as neo-nazis do. Now if he distorts evidence to support his conclusions we can talk about that and see if that qualifies as "negationism" or "revisionism", that's why I wanted to discuss this here, and appreciate unlike the other people you have responded thus far. As for if I am a "Tankie", I keep my political biases on my userpage. I am a Marxist-Leninist and am not going to lie about it, as nazis would regarding their ideology. AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider tankie an insult. Same thing as neo-liberal.

Furr posits a grand conspiracy just like Neo-Nazis. He also doesn't do much research

Example: "The “Official” Version of the Katyn Massacre Disproven? Discoveries at a German Mass Murder Site in Ukraine", Socialism and Democracy, 2013, vol. 27, issue 2, pp. 96-129:

The 1943 German report on Katyn states that the following item was found in one of the mass graves:

eine ovale Blechmarke unter den Asservaten vor, die folgende Angaben enthält T. K. UNKWD K. O. 9424 Stadt Ostaschkow

[...] probable English translation would be: Prison Kitchen, NKVD Directorate, Kalinin Oblast’ [prisoner, or cell, or badge number] 9 4 2 4 town of Ostashkov

None of the “transport lists” from the camp at Ostashkov were for transport to Katyn or anywhere near Smolensk. All these lists state that the Polish prisoners were sent to Kalinin. Therefore the person buried at Katyn who had this badge in his possession had been shipped to Kalinin. But, obviously, he was not shot there. The badge was unearthed at Katyn. Therefore, the owner of this badge was also shot at Katyn, or nearby

The prison kitchen point comes straight from the Russian denial literature (actually T. K. means trudovaya koloniya or colony of work), which is how we know where Furr got this "argument". Needless to say, Furr is deeply ignorant of the fact that POWs were sent from camp to camp, like the 112 people transferred from Ostashkov to Kozielsk on 19.11.1939. None of Furr's conclusions continue. He simply accepts the authenticity of the documents alleged to have been found by the Soviets in the graves, without addressing the fact that the "key" ones must be fake, to wit: the allegedly exhumed "documents" of Araszkiewicz and Lewandowski mention absolutely non-existent "ON" POW camps and the Poles in question as POWs later than the spring of 1940, yet we know that these camps never existed not only because there is not a single trace of them in the GUPVI archive (or any trace in real life), but because we have summary documents from the period in question listing all the groups of Polish POWs and the camps where they reside. No "ON" camps are mentioned, and the "missing" Polish POWs in question are listed as transferred to UNKVD in April-May 1940. So whatever happened to them, they were no longer POWs at the time these reports were filed, so the "found" "documents" cannot be authentic. And so, once again, nothing that Furr claims follows from these "documents" actually follows.

Another example of his negationism:

He accepts the trials of "trotskyites" in Moscow (show trials) as real, despite massive evidence to the contrary:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2019/08/again-about-stalinist-deniers-yes.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/eujska/grover_furrs_dull_propaganda_is_not_even_bad/

Also, as I was saying before, other Marxist historians exist that actually have credibility. Furr is not a historian, and his only evidence is a jewish capitalist plan to destroy communism. BasedMises (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for not getting back to you within a fast and timely manner, I have a lot of things going on right now. I will try to respond ASAP to these points and all. AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No Worries. BasedMises (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Revisionist vs. Negationist

Revisionist is referring to a heterodox outlook of history, which is often supported by verifiable evidence. Negationism, on the other hand, is bestowed upon things like denial of war crimes, or denial of the holocaust. Essentially, things that are well documented. Furr is also not a historian- which adds to the negationist label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs)

Agreed. His denial of the Katyn massacre is a clear example. Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Also his denial of Moscow Trials among several other things. Volunteer Marek 03:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide a verifiable source that says Furr is a negationist—otherwise it's original research. (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This article does have a ton of text based on primary sources though, which presents Furr's views uncritically. Volunteer Marek 03:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that we need a reliable source which describes him directly as a "historical negationist" or denier. The cited Klehr/Haynes source clearly supports describing him as a supporter of Stalinism and communist revolutions, but does not contain the statement that Furr is a "denier." WP:BLP is clear - any claim about a person which is unsourced must be removed. I'm hardly sympathetic to his ideology (Stalinism is about the dumbest thing possible to believe in) but that doesn't change the fact that we need sources, and they aren't there right now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The book is called "Denialists". It describes prominent denialists. Please obtain consensus before whitewashing pseudohistory. The consensus on this page has been that he is a negaitonist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, the book is called "In Denial." The mere fact that a person is quoted in a book called "In Denial" does not mean we can factually describe that person as a denialist or a "historical negationist," particularly given that the cited text in the book explicitly does not call this person a "historical negationist" or "denier" and does not, in fact, accuse him of denying or negating anything. Rather, the quote clearly depicts him as a Stalinist and communist revolutionary supporter - which is apparently true and not in serious debate or question - but does not accuse him of denying anything. WP:BLP applies here, no differently than anywhere else.

It's acceptable to note that the Government of Poland has described him as something - but just as we cannot state the conclusion of the Southern Poverty Law Center as fact, we cannot state the Government of Poland's conclusion as a fact either. We need a consensus of reliable sources, and that's clearly lacking here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Gov of Poland is a reliable source. I don't think we need more than one, considering WP:Fringe, which I am certain you are aware of. Secondly, please obtain consensus before making a change which we have debated for probably 3 or so months. BasedMises^{Mont Pelerin Society} 02:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no consensus here, and a single letter from a government is not sufficient sourcing to describe someone, factually, as something. Please review BLP before violating it.

WP:BLPREMOVE in pertinent part: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards. The Government of Poland is a self-publisher - its opinion here is clearly relevant, but we cannot take its opinion at face value or as the sole arbiter of what is and is not a "historical negationist". Again, see articles related to the Southern Poverty Law Center - the SPLC's opinion is generally relevant, but must be attributed. We do not describe people as "white supremacists" based solely on the SPLC's say-so. We similarly cannot declare someone a denier or a "historical negationist" based solely upon the Government of Poland's opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between a government and an organization. For example, imagine a right-wing news site (daily wire as an example) calls someone a terrorist, versus if the US government calls them a terrorist. Secondly, please establish a consensus before pushing your POV on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs) 03:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to your belief, Wikipedia does not describe someone as a terrorist solely on the American government's say-so; rather, we have Category:Individuals designated as terrorists by the United States government - an attributed statement.

We actually don't describe anyone as a "terrorist" unless convicted of a terrorist offense. We explicitly do not have a Category:Terrorists (note the redlink) - rather, we have Category:People charged with terrorism and Category:People convicted on terrorism charges.

Note that even Osama bin Laden's article states of al-Qaida, The group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries. We attribute that statement, no matter how obvious it is.

It's not up to me to get consensus here - it's up to you to provide reliable sources which support your claims about a living person. The burden of proof for your proposed addition lies on you. That you deeply wish to describe Furr as a "historical negationist" or "denier" is clearly true, but you may not wishcast onto Furr's biography. You need sources which say the thing you want to say, and if we're to say something deeply negative as a fact in Wikivoice, we need a consensus of reliable sources. If you cannot find such sources, then you cannot say it here. Not as a fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

All I want is so the edit conflict ends. If anything, I originally suspected you of "wishcasting" things, but I am above your childish criticisms of me. Please, lets just work and find a middle ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no "middle ground" - you either find sources which support your claims, or you back away and drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• [1] - sure, he was described by director of Polish Institute of National Remembrance as such, and this can be mentioned in the body of the page. But the proper summary of the page for the lead is different: he is just a pseudohistory writer and historical negationist simply because of what he writes about Katyn massacre, Moscow trials and other historical events (see the page). This is not according to Polish government. He denies basic historical data and facts, just as anyone who directly and openly say the Holocaust never happened or that he just disproved all laws of physics, etc. In addition the reference in the lead is to the Institute of National Remembrance. This is just a weak source and does not necessarily reflect the view by Polish government. It should not appear in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Furr's work isn't history simply because it is pseudohistory (also he isn't even a historian). He can't translate properly as well ("Trudovaya kolonaya" to "Trudovaya Kuhnya" as an example.)BasedMises^{Mont Pelerin Society} 23:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

We need reliable secondary sources which say he is a pseudohistorian or a historical negationist. This is basic verifiability and, as quoted above, biographies of living persons policy. Neither of these policies may be ignored simply because we don't like the guy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't not like him. I know Russian, he doesn't. In his work he mistranslates things, and is not just a negationist, he is not a historian (he doesn't have a degree in history).BasedMises^{Mont Pelerin Society} 23:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that in his work he mistranslates things is not relevant to Wikipedia and is the textbook definition of prohibited original research. You need to get your opinion published in a reliable source. Only then could we include it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A Google search for "Grover Furr" "pseudohistorian" returns only nine total hits, none of which are reliable sources. A similar search returns only 18 unique hits for "Grover Furr" "pseudohistory" - unfortunately, none of these appear to be reliable sources either. It is a truism on Wikipedia that sometimes we can't write good articles about people because sources simply don't exist. I'm not interested in defending what this person believes, but we are required to uphold sourcing and fairness standards whether or not we like someone's ideology. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

A similar search for David Irving (much more prominent pseudohistorian) also has few results. Wikipedia does not bow down to pseudohistory because we represent the facts, not the distorted opinions of genocide deniers. I am not biased at all because you can't be biased towards facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Except among those results on the very first page are articles in The Wall Street Journal and The Times of Israel, along with at least one academic publication indexed in JSTOR. The similar search for Furr brings up nothing but Reddit posts. You have presented a not remotely comparable situation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

But those are all biased. Obviously you have a personal bias against Irving. The govn't of Poland saying he is a negationist is enough. Furr is not nearly as (in)famous as David Irving. Wikipedia is not a place for you to POV-push, it is a place that places fact over opinion.

Excuse me? You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. I strongly suggest that you review the Biographies of Living Persons policy and the Verifiability policy before editing further. The Wall Street Journal and The Times of Israel are reliable sources, as are academic publications. If we had an article from the WSJ and a published peer-reviewed academic paper calling Furr a "pseudohistorian," this discussion wouldn't be taking place - there would be sufficient sources to support the claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• One of ways to handle such things on BLP pages is to focus on views by the person in the lead instead of labeling him one way or another. For example, "and he believed that Earth is flat". My very best wishes (talk)

• Agreed - which is why I had no problem explicitly explaining that he rejects the mainstream view of the culpability of the Katyn massacre; we could even be stronger and mention that the Russian government itself has accepted responsibility and declared that Stalin was responsible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed. This is would fit BLP, and present his views uncritically — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasedMises (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. In the summary I briefly described content of every section. Note that several sources cited on the page do accuse him of denialism, rather than revisionism. Not surprising since he denies or twists basic historical facts. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This was posted to BLPN. I've edited to more tightly follow what the sources say and to give due weight to the comments about him. The accusation of academic misconduct was made by one commentator in PJ Media, so should not be highlighted in the lead or in its own section. Fences&Windows 20:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with such edits. But speaking on the essence of this, the writings by Grover Furr and other Stalinist "historians" (most of them in Russia of course) is an extremely toxic misinformation. One Russian poet wrote very long time ago (loose translation) "I'm sorry for the country where all the executioners were forgiven, and every fifth man still supports them" [2], meaning that as much as 20% of Soviet people at time (of presumably Leonid Brezhnev) still supported Stalin and his actions. But right now this is 70% ! This NBC article describes a meeting where people condemn Putin for being too soft with Western countries and very literally beg Stalin to rise up from his grave. My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Denying Holodomor vs Denying Holodomor Genocide

To say it again, Furr does not deny that mass famines happened in Ukraine and other areas of the Soviet Union. He denies that it was a deliberate famine and he denies that it was caused by collectivisation. - Fanny Raymond May 20 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:B303:6B64:65E2:8E:AF92:726D (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Where in the article is it implied otherwise? I think in the past the article implied that he denied the existence of the famine, but it's since been fixed. Look at the Holodomor section and you will see a quote of him saying that a famine happened at the time. Acalycine (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Holodomor

Why do we have this section? He just seems to agree with the consensus among historians: it happened, but it was not intentional. The word "claim" is used, for some reason, for his just repeating the mainstream view. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The overall consensus has been that it is manmade though. However, unlike the denial of the Holocaust, there are many respected academics who believe it was not entirely intentional, although they are definitely a minority. BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 15:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

He does not deny the Soviet famine of 1932–1933. But he tells that Holodomor is "fiction" and that has never been any evidence of a 'Holodomor'. Hence he denies the existence of Holodomor. Here is proper analogy. Someone does not deny that many people died at the territories occupied by Nazi, but he tells that Holocaust was fiction. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Holocaust analogy is apt, since the Holodomor page frames the characterisation of the Holomodor as genocide as in dispute, rather than saying that the very existence of the famine is in dispute. Hence it implies that other historians have disputed the intentionality (or characterisation) of the Holodomor, but not the existence of the thing itself. This seems to be what Furr is doing. In any case, his stance can and should be be clarified without leading readers into thinking he denies the existence of the famine or that he accepts a characterisation of it as a deliberate genocide. Acalycine (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Restoring Furr's articles list

I propose to put a list of Grover Furr's articles, he has published, for example, as a section next to a list of books he authored. The fact of him writing them is something basic and well documented and do not cause controversies. We have no grounds to hide that information. Conrad sobre wiki (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE says that indiscriminate lists of information are not appropriate. It's much, much better to show the reader Furr's notable works, and explain why each one has attracted attention. Basically, if nobody has commented on a Furr publication, it isn't worth listing. 14:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

I am copying below a message posted to my user talk page, as it concerns edits to this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am Sigurd hoy, doing the edit on the Grover Furr article. The one you removed. Thanks for the message on my page.

I think it is a mistake. The article was far less than neutral before my edit, to put it mildly. So I did my best to give a more neutral form. I added relevant info about his education and his fields of work. From his time at Princeton where he also has a Ph. D., for instance, not only a BA. Please point out what in my edit you do not think is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigurd hoy (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sigurd hoy:, I encourage you to read WP:NPOV, as I don't believe you are appropriately using the word "neutral" as it is meant in Wikipedia contexts. On the education and work content, I have been looking for reliable, secondary sources covering that info. Could you link the source from which you pulled that material? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I do understand the concept of neutrality. What I removed was very biased, without any sources. from BLP guideline:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed ::immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively..."

Also I added material of factual nature. Mostly from the profile page at Montclair State University, where he works as a professor. Here: https://www.montclair.edu/profilepages/view_profile.php?username=furrg

You did not answer what in my edit you think was "less than neutral".Sigurd hoy (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to edit Sigurd hoy text by adding info about controversy among mainstream historians regarding conclusions by Grover Furr, so the text would be written in calm, neutral tone, without suggesting pseudo-history, denialism or fringe, and it was reverted in less than 1 (words: one) minute. That's all for objectivity and NPOV in Wikipedia texts. Conrad sobre wiki (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I did indeed move much faster and more aggressively than the current sourcing allows, and I apologize. I am used to seeing uncited material in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE, that is justified in the body. I know from my last read of the article that the body includes views from Furr that are plainly, to my reading, negationist and pseudohistorical. Ditto for the line about fringe theories. That said, we shouldn't include those descriptors if they aren't cited to reliable sources, and it appear that they are not, currently. It is possible that some other editors of the article have access to such sources; I have not yet found any. I support removal of the contentious descriptors until such sources are found.

I continue to oppose parts of Conrad sobre wiki and Sigurd hoy's edits, including the unsourced additions to the lead (also not supported in the body), and the highlighting of titles/occupations/interests of Furr's that don't appear to contribute to his notability. It's categorically worse to have unsourced negative descriptors of a living person than it is to have unsourced biographical info or to highlight some of the less notable roles, so I currently find my reverts to be bad calls, and I reiterate my apology.

I have some forming thoughts on other potential improvements to the article, and I want to at least float the possibility of erasing most of the sections that are entirely or predominantly sourced only to Furr's publications. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The concept of WP:Neutral point of view does not mean that we whitewash the lead section to minimize Furr's controversial writings. We must give proper weight to the various aspects of Furr's career. Furr is not at all famous for his regular position as professor of literature at Montclair. Rather, he is famous for his controversial writings. Thus, the controversy must be given top billing, mentioned first and foremost. Everything else is secondary. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with author first, and professor later. Can we describe Furr as negationist, and his writing as pseudo-historical, without RS making those claims? Or do you have access to sources that make those claims? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That question is discussed a couple of threads above this one. I was responding solely to the question of how to comply with NPOV in the lead section, which has recently been the target of edit-warring behavior. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The outcome of that discussion appears to be a version that contains neither negationist nor pseudo-historical. It did include "He has been criticized for denial of Stalinist crimes" with denial linked to Historical negationism. Would you oppose edits to restore similar language and links in the lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I would not oppose. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh right, Mr. Binksternet said: “I would not oppose” to a reasonably put version by Firefangledfeathers and then immediately made a revert to the most intrusive and biased version. The NPOV rule is so sweet here, really. Conrad sobre wiki (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding NPOV. It does not imply that coverage has to be positive. In the case of someone like, for example, David Irving, Wikipedia has no obligation to say something like "David Irving is a historian..." rather than "David Irving is a holocaust denier, historical negationist, and ...". In fact, Blink's revert made it more NPOV by removing elements that were ambiguous on things like the Katyn Massacre. (Which is one of many crimes committed by the USSR that clearly happened and are accepted as fact by mainstream historians.)BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 21:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, could you please stop making disruptive editing of this article? It is definitely disruptive, because your reverts completely ignore the consensus we are worked out in this discussion here. Conrad sobre wiki (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh right, BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin}, now that whole David Irving comes! His “work” is completely different kind. Irving was proven to falsify his data and actively saying falsehoods in his books and articles. He even lost a case in the court. Furr did not do such a thing; contrary: as he claims, he works on the first hand sources from the Soviet archives and found many “mistakes” in books of mainstream historians, like, for instance, Timothy Snyder and others. These “mistakes” are serious, including bogus citations. Thus, attacking the article's reader with “pseudo-history”, “negationist” and “fringe science” is far too much here. The much more balanced version by Firefangledfeathers agrees with consesus from this discussion.Conrad sobre wiki (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Furr is not considered a historian and his work has been firmly deemed negationist and denialist by the profession. In general, denying the Katyn Massacre is considered denialism. Denying Stalin's crimes is also considered denialism. I am not willing to give any concessions. Please stop reverting Blink's edits. BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 21:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've now copied in the first two sentences of the May version. I think it's good to note Furr's denial of Stalinist crimes, which is documented in RS. I think it's preferable not to state that this is what Furr is "primarily known for" unless this is stated by RS. That said, the fact that RS focus on this aspect of Furr's activity does mean that these views are due and should be highlighted in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Bias in article intro

I had read a Grover Furr article in Counterpunch discussing the work of Prof. Mark Tauger on the Holodomor topic. Counterpunch is usually a publication with credible authors. I also saw a video called "Grover Furr on the 'Holodomor' Myth & Ukrainian Ultra-Nationalism" although the host of the YouTube video is a third party with an evident political view. A person videoed is not responsible for the political biases of a person hosting a video. In the video Furr mentioned he based his views of the Holodomor on the work of Tauger at Univ of West Va., and described Tauger as not political and not conservative or liberal in bias, no dogs in the issue himself.

Then I came over here and glanced at Grover Furr's article and in the very first paragraph someone has taken it upon themselves to cast Furr as a "historical revisionist," which basically means someone who is not credible who is lying about history. I don't think that term should be used without strong basis in reliable articles that categorically state this because otherwise there are legal issues involved in opinions published in an article about a living person. I object as someone who is still forming my opinion carefully and reading on the subject. I am not going to myself go in and edit out that word but I believe it is wrong to have that sentence describing him that way, which is someone's opinion when we are not a primary source! It should not even be in there if you can find only one other view echoing that smear but should need a lot more than one person smearing him if you can find one since he's a living person and we have rules in here we are supposed to adhere to about living persons. Emerman (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based mainly on WP:SECONDARY sources. You looked at a piece written by Furr,[3] then you looked at YouTube video. The Furr piece is a primary source with regard to this article, and the YouTube video by karimberdi is absolutely unreliable.

What we used to compose this biography are WP:Reliable sources. They dismiss his "historian" writings as nonsense. He first forms his conclusion, then he fabricates evidence, or cherry-picks the historical record, to support his conclusion. This the wrong way to be a topic scholar, and it would never pass peer review.

In other words, the term "revisionist" is being kind to Furr. He's more of a quack than a revisionist. Certainly a fringe figure, not worth the trouble. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern was for us to put our footnotes up rather than type opinions about living people. I told you how I came upon the subject so why are you telling me about where I was reading about him earlier; there is no reason for you to start telling me about secondary sources to apparently divert attention from what I raised as a concern -- my point was someone is making the main ARTICLE HERE a primary source when they write their opinions about a living person as "revisionist" and don't put a footnote for this supposed fact. I saw sentences that were opinions of editors here who did not use any footnotes for the sentence I referenced calling him a revisionist. Mark Tauger is not to my knowledge regarded as a revisionist and that is who Furr said he was relying on for his views on the manmade famine topic, which is the subject that got my attention in the first place after seeing memes all over the place recently on the subject. I was actually more interested in Tauger than Furr and have looked for more on him than Furr but found the main article on Furr here when I was glancing in. As to your comments, there may be more topics Furr has talked about than I have checked on; my visit was casual related to what I had encountered, and I was surprised by the first sentence or two in the main article. I do think it is unusual his field is Medieval English lit and he's talking about 20th century history in the item I encountered him in online citing Tauger. I had not even looked at the rest of the Talk page when I added my concern. My reaction was just based on reading the first couple of sentences of the main article on Furr. It appears to me that some people have personal grudges and biases toward the subject of the article. Emerman (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I saw zero use of "reliable sources" by anyone footnoted for the sentence about the article subject as "a revisionist" at the time I came in and made my comment. Perhaps someone will be doing it soon, although it will be interesting to see what "reliable sourcing" they cite with. Emerman (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Grover Furr intro

I have a few problems with the intro to the page on Grover Furr. 1. The use of biased terms such as “historical revisionist” and “fringe theories” without any sources to actually back up these evaluations. Just the opinion of some random editor. 2. The lack of sources to prove that Furr claims these things. Even reviews of his work would suffice as these are secondary sources but no one has bothered to include them yet. 2A0E:CB01:10:3400:B569:398E:FD0C:20F (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also support removing the term "historical revisionist" for a different reason: it implies Furr's reputation is broadly akin to acknowledged historians like Sheila Fitzpatrick and J. Arch Getty, which simply isn't the case. It's more akin to David Barton. --Ismail (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What happened to "I won’t be editing that page any longer since edit warring is a waste of time and does not result in any meaningful progress"? Furr is known as an apologist for Stalinism, and all of his writings on the topic are outside of his field of expertise, per Horowitz. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Furr had addressed this and other accusations made by Horowitz in the 2007 book The Professors. [4] I don't know if we should take what at least in part amounts to defamation at face-value. I agree that Furr's works reflect apologism, but Horowitz's controversial accusations and the lack of sourcing pointed out by the IP address user do not help. WP:GRAPEVINE is strict about controversial claims on BLPs. As a point of comparison, David Horowitz has hic large share of controversial ideas too, such as characterizing the American political left as a totalitarian movement. It wouldn't be proper to put "right-wing conspiracy theorist" in his article's lede without uncontentious sourcing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Still POV

This entire article is trash, and clearly being stage-managed by one or more people with a vested interest in maintaining a particular narrative of the man and his works. Even to characterize the positions he advances as "beliefs" is to demean years of RESEARCH into a single topic. To add insult to injury, "...and Reception" is included in the section title, when other biographical articles have a separate section altogether for "Reception". IOW, every claim he makes is immediately muddied with counterclaims, no matter how flimsy they might be. In short, this article is a dirty toilet. Any janitors out there??? 142.198.148.181 (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Horowitz

I checked the archives: Horowitz is mentioned a few times, but as far as I can see, there is no discussion about removing him as a source. So, I am starting one.

Do we need that 101 Professors thing? It's just McCarthyism - Cancel Culture from the Right, if you will. Not a serious source. There is no point in adding to articles about leftists that right-wing figures do not like them. Of course they don't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Furr's opinion

In Furr's works, he never claimed that the Holodomor (famine of 1932-33) was a "hoax". For example, in his book "Stalin, Waiting for the truth" he never claimed the famine didn't happen, but he did disprove the claim that it was a genocide. I can't accept this deliberate misrepresentation that the other user has given. TheVictoryOfTheProletariat (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for following the rules. I guess "the other user" is me, but actually I just restored a long-standing wording. This article has a long history of whitewashing, therefore we are cautious about it.

Indeed the word "hoax" is not in the sources given, as you say, and the wording may need improvement. But I just found a source where Furr calls the Holodomor "phony" [5], so "hoax" seems to be not far from his actual opinion. What do others think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. By "phony", he means the claim that the Holodomor was a genocide is phony, not that the famine didn't happen. In his works he does not deny that the famine occured, only disagrees witht the claim that it was a genocide and that Stalin was to blame for it. This can be seen in his book "Stalin, waiting for the truth." TheVictoryOfTheProletariat (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheVictoryOfTheProletariat is correct on the substance of the issue here. "Hoax," or even "phony," are too far from the actual position to be helpful characterizations. For example, in the article linked above where Furr uses the word "phony," the substance of his position is actually:

"Interestingly enough, official Soviet Ukrainian primary sources show that the 1928-29 famine, caused by natural disaster, mainly drought, was very serious, and Ukraine received more aid from the Soviet government, than the Kremlin sent to other parts of the USSR. This obviously disproves the false theory of the Ukrainian nationalists' "malicious" conspiracy against Ukrainian peasants in the Soviet Union, noted Grover Furr in his book "Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation Against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands Is False."

In other words, Furr does not deny a famine occurred, instead arguing that it was not malicious or intentionally planned.

@TheVictoryOfTheProletariat, respectfully, I caution against discourse characterizations like "deliberate misrepresentation." That is not very helpful in working through the issues of substance. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The reason why I say "deliberate misrepresenation" is because there is no evidence for the claim that Furr considered the Holodomor a "hoax", and the source given in this article disproves this notion. Therefore either the person who made this claim didn't read this source and was ignorantly making claims with no evidence, or was deliberately misrepresenting. I don't know for certain but I will refrain from making the claim that it was deliberately misrepresented. TheVictoryOfTheProletariat (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I ventured an edit just now using the existing sources in the body. See if that works for you both. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion on 29 August 2023

Hello! I am making this suggestion because I believe that there is loaded language in the article that harms the neutrality of the article. The sentence in question is this:

"Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin."

I believe it can be improved to read as this:

"Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his counter-hegemonic views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin."

There are 2 reasons for this suggestion:

1. Other editors have suggested removing the phrase "revisionism". This is my suggestion to resolve that problem.
2. This change is to replace "revisionist" with "counter-hegemonic". This will improve the article because "revisionist" implies that the perspective is incorrect while "counter-hegemonic" implies only that it challenges the status quo's perspective. "counter-hegemonic does not say anything about whether Grover Furr's perspective are correct or incorrect which is very important to maintain a neutral point of view. Atinoua (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

As the lead should reflect the body of the article, sources are necessary to support "counter-hegemonic." That seems to be the starting point. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right. Thank you for correcting my mistake. Atinoua (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. See WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

To say that the term "revisionist" implies Furr's views are wrong is unfounded. As I've mentioned before, I support removing the term because it implies Furr is akin to Getty, Fitzpatrick, Lynne Viola, and other respected "revisionist" historians, which isn't the case. And if "revisionist" isn't neutral-sounding (even though it refers to a well-known school of historians of the USSR, whose leading lights seem to have accepted the label), I don't see how "counter-hegemonic" isn't biased in Furr's favor (not to mention it doesn't explain what "hegemony" Furr is supposedly countering, given the existence of different interpretations of the Stalin era held by historians whose views range from avowedly Marxist to conservative.) --Ismail (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that he is not like other revisionist historians (Getty, Fitzpatrick, etc.). He is a denialist, more exactly, a historical denialist because he denies well-know facts in this historical field. Saying that in the lead is not WP:SYN, just a fair summary of content currently on the page (i.e. 2nd phrase in the lead, etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)