Here. I'm pleased to see the article. But there are a definitely some confusions. I was particularly annoyed by the "definition" of analytic philosophy as ahistorical philosophy, and the absurd insinuation that philosophers at Penn State, Northwestern, and Stony Brook are better historians than the philosophers at so-called "analytic" departments ranked in historical areas in the Gourmet Report. Surely it doesn't take too much journalistic fact-finding to discover that this is false. If there were no rankings, would people actually give these claims some kind of credibility?