Talk:The Professors

message: The question in dispute it this: Does including a list of the professors mentioned in the title and included in the book constitute a WP:BLP violation? The title characterizes them as "dangerous." Most of these profs are living so care must be taken where they are concerned. Some editors want to apply a broad interpretation of the BPL rule and judge it to be in vio. Others point out that this is not a biography but an article about a book. All claims made in the book are simply the opinion of the author and are(were) presented that way. Nowhere would the article maintain that these are objective facts about the professors involved. Thus, no BLP vio. 
My personal concern is that there seems to be a concerted attempt at censorship going on here and that this goes against the open spirit of the encyclopedia. Anyway you can read for yourself above. Thanks in advance. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone that drives a vehicle on a public road is "dangerous" to others.  These professors are notable public figures, often published multiple times or heading important institutions, departments or organizations. Probably more than half have been notable enough to have pages here already. They take controversial positions so have been criticised many times before.  Wikipedia will not be taking a stand.  The list is not negative itself, it is NPOV.  Horowitz's opinion has already been mentioned on several of the professors pages.  A reader will be able to click on an entry in the list and see whether they are likely to agree with Horowitz's assessment.  The source is of the highest quality, there can be no better source for who Horowitz has this opinion about than the book itself. I don't see any possible libel concerns from having the list in the article, since wikipedia will be remaining neutral.  In fact, I don't see any possible lible violation for Horowitz himself for labeling them "dangerous".  That is obviously not a fact but an opinion.  Any liability for him would rest on factual allegations in the book, not using the word "dangerous" I don't see a BLP violation.  Including the list makes the page more informative might save readers the trouble of tracking down the book to clear up the mystery of who Horowitz could possibly have in mind.  --68.35.3.66 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, while some of those named are known among scholars, many are not. The latter are known only to their students, colleagues, their friends and family, and to their employers. I reject the idea of reinstating a table to copy names from a book that is famous for egregious errors of fact. A very few of those errors are described in this article. Many more can be added. Do we need to remind ourselves that Horowitz was uninvited from speaking to a scholarly association because of a vicious and personal attack he made against a scholar? As I have argued for quite some time, there is no problem with naming the individuals who are on record as having replied directly to Horowitz's attacks in a book that even he admits suffers from errors of fact. Any naming of their names should include their replies to his attacks. That is called fairness. If these scholars have not replied, I see no reason for Wikipedia to create controversy. Skywriter (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I doubt that the list compromised BLP in any form. It was not a matter of BLP CYA as long as the article does not subscribe to "burn them all" attitude. Rather, it's all a matter of quality article writing. The list alone, without critical remarks, is as good as a telephone directory. It does not belong to an encyclopedia (being named in a fringe books is not a defining property that deserves a proper list). I agree with Skywriter: individual cases from H's boook that were independently reviewed in RS (i.e. noticed and analyzed by the community) may stay in the article. May because there is no need to reprint all names; even if all 101 entries become subjects of serious review, only a few public cases will suffice. NVO (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly agreed with the above statement.  It is not the purpose of WP to recreate the author's complete list.  Once notability has been established, if there are NPOV secondary sources that discuss perhaps a selected number of people on the list as illustrative of the type of arguments being made that might be appropriate but no complete lists.  Ngaskill (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC - the applicability of using [[WP:BLP]] criteria to preclude a list of the professors names 

message: My opinion on the BLP RFC is moot.  However, there would seem to be a copyright problem with posting a complete list that is the original work of Horowitz.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright concerns of 'The List' 

message: I think the consensus is clear.  Relying upon such consensus is better in the long run. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If consensus is clear, congratulations! Will someone please withdraw the case from WP:MEDCAB then? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is far from clear. If editor Ronz refuses to go along does that mean the use of MEDCAB is out? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I already noted  that I will not participate in MEDCAB, because this appears to a case where a few editors are simply ignoring policy.  At this point, I'll add that they are refusing to accept clear consensus as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of MEDCAB is not necessarily out. Is Ronz the only user who has a difference of opinion with you? Or are there other users in the same "camp"? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 5 of the users that responded to the RFC (including myself) who agree with Ronz that the full list should not appear in a Wikipedia article.  I am not sure if there is a consensus, nor do I see an obvious way to determine consensus, so mediation would be as good a resolution as any.  Since I came in as an uninterested party, I don't plan to participate in mediation, but I am prepared to the outcome that the parties agree to I have one condition: I request that the mediation, if it goes ahead, be advertised at the WP:CP noticeboard.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple consenus-building is better

message: Alcmaeonid has signed on for arbitration. The rest of you can sign on behind him if you agree with my decision. Here it is:
====Selected Relevant Policy Statements====
All from different parts of WP:BLP:
:Note that we must take particular care and adhere strictly to the policy. 
:We must be conservative.
:This means it applies to every person on the list.
:Everything said here is specifically relevant to the case at hand.
====ɳorɑfʈ Talk!'s Interpretation====
I have read the WP:MEDCAB case as well as this talk page.
Taking the above policies into consideration, it is clear to me that:
# The people on the list are covered by WP:BLP.
# We have little latitude in interpreting the policy.
# Publishing the list does not demonstrate a "high degree of sensitivity."
# Inclusion of the list is not relevant to the subject's notability.
Therefore, the names on the list cannot be included. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: <big>[[User:Noraft|<span style="color:green;">ɳorɑfʈ</span>]]</big><small><sup>[[User talk:Noraft| Talk!]]</sup></small>'s Opinion

message: I have read the WP:MEDCAB case as well as this talk page.
Taking the above policies into consideration, it is clear to me that:
# The people on the list are covered by WP:BLP.
# We have little latitude in interpreting the policy.
# Publishing the list does not demonstrate a "high degree of sensitivity."
# Inclusion of the list is not relevant to the subject's notability.
Therefore, the names on the list cannot be included. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: <big>[[User:Noraft|<span style="color:green;">ɳorɑfʈ</span>]]</big><small><sup>[[User talk:Noraft| Talk!]]</sup></small>'s Interpretation

message: Trying to figure where the tags came from:
*Missing information and unbalanced: 
*Unbalanced moved to indicate entire article: 
*Refimprove: 
*Bias (without indicating what bias): 
*Bias changed to pov: 
*Tags merged: 
*Disputed tag changed from blpdispute: 
From this, I'd say the disputed tag is an error. The BLP dispute over the list has been settled and it should have been removed rather than changed into a disputed tag. The bias/pov tag was added without an explanation, so it can be removed as well. I'm not sure the missing information/unbalanced and refimprove problems have been resolved, so I'm restoring them. --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags