Talk:Grover Furr

Fantasy majority

here's only one editor trying to keep it vs 4 arguing for it's removal. This is bullshit. A noticeboard is for notices. Discussion should hapen here, and you will find several discussions about revisionim in the archives . --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd at BLP talk page, and JArther. At the very least, engage with what the BLP Noticeboard has to say.Stix1776 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes please provide evidence for this "longstanding consensus" before putting it in edit. Thank you.Stix1776 (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. This version of the phrase in the lead existed for a long time (more than 6 months ) and was included per discussions on this talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes You're not showing me which editors supported it nor which discussion this is involving.Stix1776 (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much every second discussion in the archives. Pick one archive at random from , search for "revision" or "denial" in the text, and you find one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

On sentence in Reception

@Hob Gadling, can I ask why changing that sentence to directly attribute the reviewer of Horowitz's book is not needed? The sentence

David Horowitz included Furr in his book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America because Furr misuses his academic position to promote Stalinism

makes it sound like Wikipedia is the one determining that reason for inclusion, whereas in reality the reviewer (and not Horowitz himself) is (ambiguously, imo) making that assessment, see here:

For example, Dr. Grover Furr, an English professor at Montclair State University, uses his courses to express his admiration of Stalin and the communist system of government, all at the expense of the taxpayers of New Jersey (186-189).

So per "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution" (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), at the very least the article should make it clear this is the view of Kim Allen Scott, if not quote them directly. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Scott says that in his review, and you give evidence in form of a link. You claim that Horowitz does not, without giving evidence of that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

And it is very easy to find evidence of Furr's Stalin fanboi status. See . He is the mirror image of a Holocaust denier. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: No, clearly Furr upholds Stalin. But the question is whether Wikipedia or Kim Allen Scott should say that he "misuses" his position to do so, i.e. it's a question of wording. Having a quick glance at Horowitz' section on Furr, he does say that Furr uses his position to "vent his political passions on his helpless students", specifically in relation to American imperialism. If you wish to add that, citing Horowitz, I'm okay with that. But it's irrelevant to my point: we should attribute the phrase about 'Furr using his academic position to promote Stalinism' to Scott, because they're the one who said it. As an aside, the burden of proof is not on me to "prove that Horowitz didn't say this", especially considering that the article doesn't even cite Horowitz's book at all... AbsoluteWissen (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not need pings, I have a watchlist. I should have said that before, but I thought it was a one-time thing.

Also, this is not just a you-and-me thing. Furr has a long history of whitewashing, and I am just one of many editors trying to prevent that. I am not interested in a lengthy hairsplitting exchange. Your construction that one person says something on another person according to a third person is shitty writing. Replacing it by something closer to what the first person actually wrote is a better solution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree actually, it would be better to cite Horowitz himself as to his views on Furr, as the current version (in my view) misattributes a reviewer's statement to Horowitz himself. Assuming that's what you meant, how about this (see p. 244 for quote)? Or the same thing but indirect.

Conservative writer David Horowitz included Furr in his book The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, stating that Furr uses his university courses to "vent his political passions on his helpless students."

AbsoluteWissen (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I definitely agree with Hob Gadling on this. Besides, this edit misleadingly labeled in edit summary as revert (this is not revert, but including new content to the lead). Why do you think that something "published in the Montclair State University student newspaper" belongs to the lead? It does not. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hob Gadling is correct here. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the lead", but I included it because it appears to be what Horowitz cites as evidence for Furr 'venting his political passions', namely, his denunciations of 'US imperialism'—see page 244 where Horowitz quotes from Furr's article:

As one might expect from an amateur guided by political agendas, Professor Furr uses the course to vent his political passions on his helpless students. “The Western imperialists, the U.S. among them, are the biggest mass murderers in history.... The U.S. is even more guilty [of genocide] than Pol Pot.... It was a good thing that the U.S. ‘lost’ in Vietnam.... If the U.S. and their South Vietnamese stooges had won, South Vietnam would have been yet another place for American companies to move to. Hundreds of thousands more American workers would have lost their jobs.... Under no circumstances, therefore, should we ever support the U.S. government or believe what it says.”

Horowitz doesn't say he vents Stalinist passions on his students, so why are you including essentially original research? AbsoluteWissen (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the diff. It was not in the summary of the page. I self-reverted for now. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"Revisionist"

I can cite flat earthers, that doesn't make their claims correct.

From the Holodomor summary:

While scholars are in consensus that the cause of the famine was man-made, it remains in dispute whether the Holodomor was directed at Ukrainians and whether it constitutes a genocide, the point of contention being the absence of attested documents explicitly ordering the starvation of any area in the Soviet Union. Some historians conclude that the famine was deliberately engineered by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement. Others suggest that the famine was primarily the consequence of rapid Soviet industrialisation and collectivization of agriculture.

Calling him a revisionist historian is inconsistent with this, and is an emotion/ideology driven edit. 96.61.218.110 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in original research (and Wikipedia is not a reliable source). Reliable sources refer to Furr's work as "revisionist", which is why this article does so. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"Independent scholar"

I think "scholar" gives undue merit and weight to Furr's reseach. His work is not regarded as serious scholarship by his peers. Saying that he is a scholar, even an independent one, feels like whitewashing. I'd support changing it to "writer" or something like this. 2804:389:B180:40A5:1:0:26D0:BBF8 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Grover Furr.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

New Book Responding to Furr

Historian Douglas Greene released a book on the Moscow Trials that includes a critique of Furr's claims. I do not have a copy, but it could have relevant information since direct academic rebuttals to Furr are few and far between.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/In_Stalin_s_Shadow/P_R00QEACAAJ?hl=en&kptab=overview

Disclaimer: I know Greene but I have not read this book yet, nor am I posting this on his behalf. Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)