Talk:David P. Barash

Skewed to David Horowitz
This article is practically a coathanger for Horowitz's criticism of him in 100 Professors ruining America. I think this is especially ironic and misleading in the case of Barash, as this article might give you the impression he is known primarily as a big leftist, when in fact his main academic work is actually frequently attacked by the left since, Barash strongly supports the sociobiology of EO Wilson. --Gary123 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source that suggests that Horowitz's criticism is inaccurate, please cite it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

David P. Barash
Nearly the entire article is devoted to a "criticism" section focusing on Barash's political views, when he is primarily known as a sociobiologist. I think this is fairly clearly in violation of wikipedia's coatrack article policy, and I request that an editor look into this. Nearly all of the "criticisms" derive from David Horowitz or those associated with his organizations. --Gary123 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree; this looks like a hatchet job by a Horowitz sympathizer. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to coatrack, the source here did not meet WP:RS in my judgment, so I removed the paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same content was replaced and expanded upon as there are objections to it here I have removed it and asked the editor replacing it to first discuss and seek support here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not a "Horowitz sympathizer." But more to the point, why are criticisms of Barash's book not allowed in Wikipedia? The book that he co-authroed Peace and Conflict Studies is widely used in Peace Studies programs throughout the United States.  There are plenty of professors and academics whose political views are documented in Wikipedia, regardless of their primary field of study. Barash's book should be open to the same standards. Horowitz is cited as the source of these criticisms (they are clearly established as his opinions, and not broadly accepted facts). I am unaware of any Wikipedia rule that states that criticism derived from Horowitz is not allowed. Horowitz cites specific quotes from the book in his criticism.
 * The material I added came from the Summer 2007 edition of City Journal in an article written by Bruce Bawer, who cites a specific quote (among other things) from Barash's book that praises Lenin who “maintained that only revolution—not reform—could undo capitalism’s tendency toward imperialism and thence to war." Link: The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, Summer 2007. Are you suggesting that this is not a reliable source? And if so why? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC))
 * And by the way, as for your claim that "he is primarily known as a sociobiologist", Barash's faculty website lists 10 books that he has published that relate to Peace Studies. Clearly, Mr. Barash does take this issue very seriously and not simply as a hobby.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC))
 * The text you added says that Bawer argued that the book "...supports violence in the pursuit of left-wing ideology". I don't see where Bawar is saying that. What he says is: "The account of capitalism in David Barash and Charles Webel’s widely used 2002 textbook Peace and Conflict Studies leans heavily on Lenin, who “maintained that only revolution—not reform—could undo capitalism’s tendency toward imperialism and thence to war,” and on Galtung, who helpfully revised Lenin’s theories to account for America’s “indirect” imperialism. Students acquire a zero-sum picture of the world economy: if some countries and people are poor, it’s because others are rich. They’re taught that American wealth derives entirely from exploitation and that Americans, accordingly, are responsible for world poverty." If you want to say that Bawer think the book gives students an unfair view of global politics that's fine but I don't see where Bawer is saying anything about Barash's book supporting violence. GabrielF (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will agree with you on that. Barash doesn't openly support violence (although his praise for Lenin seems a little contradictory, but I admit that is speculation which doesn't belong in Wikipedia). This should be corrected if the material is reinstated.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Also, if you want to add material in which  Barash responds to Horowitz's allegations, feel free too. In fact, I recommend Peace class lands UW prof on list of "most dangerous".(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC))