Talk:Mike Davis (scholar)

message: An important issue in Ecology of Fear was that of fires... now that LA is on fire (well, part of it...) and some controversial hypotheses by Davis seem to have just come true, shouldn't this entry be updated?--213.140.21.227 08:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New Times LA is defunct because it got bought out by its competitor, the LA Weekly (owned by Village Voice), in an exchange that raised more than a few eyebrows in LA's journalism community.  It had nothing to do with Davis.  (And, IMHO, New Times was a far more interesting paper than LA Weekly).  The paper's criticism of Davis was lame, I agree -- in their obsession with scandal, writers Jill Stewart and Rick Barrs ("the Finger"), picked up on then-Malibu real estate agent and amateur fact-checker Brady Westwater's 20-page screed attacking Davis based on dubious analysis of alleged errors in Davis' footnotes.  Some of the errors were indeed errors; some were simply not; none of them were as significant as Westwater claimed and the whole thing was blown ridiculously out of proportion first by Westwater and then by a series of articles in New Times LA.  Joel Kotkin was thrilled, but everyone with an academic background familiar with Davis' work knew it was BS.  Westwater, a real estate agent in Malibu, was irate for pretty obvious reasons when the chapter from Ecology of Fear showed up in the LA Weekly, with a photo of a Malibu fire on the cover, and the title "LET MALIBU BURN."  So he devoted his life to combing through every footnote in Davis' books and trying to destroy his credibility.  Apparently, he is still obsessed with undermining Davis' credibility, to no avail.  Anyway, the point is, New Times LA's undoing had nothing to do with its Davis criticism, and it was actually an excellent alternative paper in its day -- what it lacked in comprehensiveness it more than made up for in irreverence.  And no LA paper since - not the Weekly and none of the alternative papers that have cropped up in its wake - has produced a column as cool as "the Finger."--csloat 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify:  Westwater's "work" is a joke.  True, by combing the footnotes carefully he found some errors and exaggerations, as one could with just about any academic manuscript.  But he did not find evidence that Davis was a fraud or that there was a systematic attempt to distort things, as he claimed.  There is only a two-sided debate about this because one "side" is populated by ideologues like Westwater and Jill Stewart and... well, not really anyone else.  I don't know of any credentialed academic who takes the claims seriously.  Don't get me wrong - everyone knows Davis has a literary flair, and there is hyperbole in his work; in addition, I don't think he has ever tried to hide or disavow his politics.  But the claims made by Stewart and Westwater that he has been discredited are ridiculous.--csloat 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: But Westwater and Stewart are pretty much the only published sources that can back up your claims.  The "well established overstatements and logical fallacies" that Westwater claimed to have found were mostly themselves overblown exaggerations.  If you got this information from elsewhere, let us know, but this isn't the place for original research.  Also, let's not confuse an inability (or perhaps an unwillingness) to understand particular methods or claims with "confirmation bias."  As I've said, I don't know of a single credentialed academic who takes these claims about Davis seriously.  If you know of one, please share (and, of course, feel free to add their published research to the article).  But if there is none, we are left with the likes of Jill Stewart and Brady Westwater.--csloat 20:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I could certainly understand that - as I said, he has a literary flair; some passages are hilarious if read out of context.  (As an example, look for his comment in Ecology of Fear that mountain lions and coyotes have become an integral part of the Los Angeles street scene.)  But I think the criticism that came from Stewart et al had its origins in Westwater's screed.  It was provoked by the LA Weekly publishing "Let Malibu Burn" (along with a lurid photo of a Malibu fire on the cover), and my sense is that certain people in the press -- people already known for digging up sensationalism -- picked it up because they wanted to bring down a scholar who had just won a "genius" award.  The criticism died down since then, and if you look at academic sources, his work is no more controversial than it was before the flap.  I'm going to try to edit the sentence again to reflect this; see what you think.--csloat 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The change I made was pretty minor; it would not be a bad idea, if this article is expanded at some point, to include more information about the controversy; as I said, I think that controversy was very limited in time and that it had as its main source Brady Westwater's obviously invested screed.  Some indication that it was a time-bound event is probably necessary here.--csloat 00:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article as drafted included a sentence claiming that a Salon article had cited 'several' people accusing Davis of making up facts, 'including' a realtor and a journalist.  On reviewing the Salon article, I found just one such person - the realtor, whose case was then 'taken up by' (Salon wording) the journalist cited.  This is a pretty sneaky piece of weasel wording - deliberately misrepresenting an article which was already weasel-worded, in that none of the rest of the criticisms of Davis made in the article were in any way substantive, merely interpretive - and I have fixed the sentence to reflect what the article actually said, as opposed to what the WP contributor seems to have wanted it to say. Lexo (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work; thanks for fixing that. csloat (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel wording 

message: As other posts before on this page have said, it seems like the Criticisms and reviews section might be a bit unbalanced. As written the article provides very little support for Davis' views while quoting many people who disagree with them. Also, I'm concerned that some of the quotes might not contradict this: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." This might be a problem with [WP:UNDUE].
Also, there seem to be some weasel words here that could be a problem with [WP:AVOID]. The section uses alleged, however, and allegation. I dont know if including the 'attacks' by Jacobs on Mumford are an appropriate introduction to Merrifield's 'attacks' on Davis. Also, the phrasing that Stannard has 'argued for the defense' is appropriate in the context it's used here. Svenna (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check 

message: I am a socialist myself and love Mike Davis's stuff. I don't see any problems, however, with the section on Critiques and reviews. The general tone of the paragraph is accurate: it is expected that a hefty socialist writer will be attacked. I have added a few sentences summing up and will remove the neutrality warning. Bdubay (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough already

message: I suggest title "Mike Davis - Scholar" be changed to "Mike Davis - Writer and Political Activist" -- more accurate and recognizable.  not all of his writing is scholarly, and his work as a political activist is significant -- among both fans and critics.Jonwiener (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Davis - title - requested change 

message: He is a self-defined international socialist and "Marxist-Environmentalist"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: broken link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mike Davis (scholar). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927040527/http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142723/k.28C4/Fellows_List__July_1998.htm to http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.1142723/k.28C4/Fellows_List__July_1998.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111220003336/http://www.metamute.org/Naked-Cities-Struggle-in-the-Global-Slums to http://www.metamute.org/Naked-Cities-Struggle-in-the-Global-Slums
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111220003336/http://www.metamute.org/Naked-Cities-Struggle-in-the-Global-Slums to http://www.metamute.org/Naked-Cities-Struggle-in-the-Global-Slums
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Davis (scholar). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201230222/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/br_11.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/br_11.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201230222/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/br_11.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.4/br_11.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I regretfully did not disclose this earlier with respect to my major contributions to the article, but I may have a personal connection with the subject of the article (not a financial or professional connection in any way). I have mainly been sticking to the Biography section and re-organizing the references. As far as I am aware, conflicted editors are strongly discouraged to edit but not prohibited (Please inform me if I am wrong!). If any arbitrators desire to revert my additions, I am fine with that. I have been trying to maintain a neutral standpoint (please review my contributions and correct them if you believe they are biased) and source all of my edits.
(I accidentally deleted an earlier version of this comment when I pasted the connections template at the top of the page) Toyonbro (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI