Talk:Humberto Fontova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Birds
Cuba Portal
Humberto Fontova is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This page has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Cuba To-do:

[edit] history or polemics?

The article fails to convey the right-wing tone that is inherent to Fontova's speech and writings; he is far too partisan to be described as an historian, and his degrees are in political science and Latin American studies, not history. His work is consistently polemic in its nature, not "history" at all.

The titles of his recent essays for newsmax.com illustrate this:

Moore 'Sicko' Spin July 30, 2007

Sicko Propaganda July 23, 2007

Hillary Befriended Cuba's First Lady June 22, 2007

Matt Lauer, Andrea Mitchell Shill for Castro June 13, 2007

I'm putting this up for discussion before replacing "historian" with "polemicist." Perhaps someone more neutral than I can think of something more neutral, somewhere between the two terms, or perhaps this issue merits more discussion. Bustter 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Wikipedia's own article on Historians notes, "although 'historian' can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline".
I've noted a tendency in wikipedia to denote authors on various historical subjects as historians, which is inaccurate and dangerous. This can lend credence to a POV author, who's work primarily tends to be bias and POV. A trained professional historian understands the importance of NPOV in their work.
Perhaps 'polemicist' may be argued (I can personally see it being accurate), but at the very least I would suggest "author of biographies, memoirs, and political subjects " 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the main reason why I haven't been more bold; "polemecist" would very likely be argued. "author of biographies, memoirs, and political subjects" seems appropriate and neutral, with some show of consensus, I'll make the change and close the discussion.Bustter 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

The entry is blatantly biased, as it currently stands, i.e. "Where he makes a barrage of 'scurrilous' and questionable accusations on the life of marxist revolutionary icon Ernesto "Che" Guevara", and "interviews with 'supposed' witnesses". Please be thoughtful when it comes to these kind of statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.145.122 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)