Talk:Bell hooks/Archive 5

A reconsideration.

I have reconsidered my position. I now agree that certain criticisms should be removed because a decent case cannot be made that they are held by any more than a "tiny minority". While I still think Frontpage and Accuracy in Academia are legitimate sources, (as legitimate as Media Matters, et. al.) without any other citable sources backing their opinions, they should not be represented in the article, per WP:BLP. Lawyer2b

I applaud your decision and I appreciate your willingness to reconsider your position on this. I still think there should be a criticism section, but I think it should focus on actual criticism of her scholarship rather than smears from such sources. I like what you did with the commencement speech portion (though I don't think we can say with accuracy how anyone "felt" about hooks' speech; it might be better to put the word in quotes if it is used in the chronicle article).--csloat 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The point of your argument was driven home when I found myself taking your position in a debate I'm having over at the Protest Warrior talk page. I hate hypocrisy and am always on the lookout for it in myself and others. You have a point about the accuracy of saying someone "felt" a certain way about the speech; feel free to improve it as you see fit. :-) Lawyer2b 16:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not someone. An audience. And they didn't feel that way. All of these comments have been sourced, per discussion on the page. They belong as substantative relevant criticism. A debate about this should continue. -Kmaguir1 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add to the discussion. But do not make changes that have been deemed unacceptable until you have created a new consensus in the discussion. As it is, this debate was settled a week ago - if you have new information to add, please do so here. Thanks.--csloat 06:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not "settled", because I was not "participating", and I am not "settled" about this article. I did put new information to add here--that I was going to be reverting. And I don't have to do that. -Kmaguir1 07:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly "criticism"

User:Kmaguir1 has just gotten off a ten day block for using sockpuppets to try to add pseudo-criticism sections to the articles on Judith Butler and Michel Foucault which were very similar in quality to the "criticism" he has tried to insert here: i.e. ad hominem and unrelated to the thinker's reasons for notability. I have not worked on this article, but I'd certainly warn vigilance against such insertions.

However, in part motivated by Kmaguir1's recent disruptions—but also by numerous similar ones on other academic biographies in the past—I have begun work on an essay called Wikipedia:Academic and artistic biographies that tries to clarify some of the concerns, and pitfalls, that these biographies wind up raising. So far it is only an essay, and not even a "finished" one. But if it develops well (please help), I reckon I'll propose it as a guideline later. We'll see: I've gotten some good input, but need some more before I feel like the essay/guideline is "ready". LotLE×talk 07:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, notability is not just within a field, but within the press at large. And this is the most she's been covered in the media at large, it is notable, it's about her, the things she says speak for themselves, and so, let people read what she says. -Kmaguir1 07:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts for Kmaguir1: Criticism sections are heavily discouraged. Negative and positive should be reported together to keep things in context. Also, especially in biographies, negative statements must be written neutrally and above all, must be sourced. You simply cannot dump an entirely negative section into the article and provide a biased source which doesn't even cover most of the material added and expect it to stand.

That said, I did notice that the article only has one piece of negative information, the lecture she was booed at. There doesn't seem to be a pro hooks slant to the piece; the sections have been worded in a very factual manner (just like its supposed to be :) ). However, I know that she receives a large amount of negative press - her work is definately eye-catching. It would appear that the dissenting views may need a bit more representation - so long as its done in a neutral, factual, sourced manner. Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shell Kinney (talk • contribs) 08:45, 24 August 2006

I would prefer to see criticism from people who have actually read her work and deal with its substance than the kind of criticism that Kmaguir keeps putting in from non-academic sources with an obvious agenda who seem only to be reacting to her personality or her "leftism." There are plenty of real academics who are critical of hooks' work.--csloat 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See my examples on Lulu's standard talk page--I want to see scholarly criticism, as well. I won't excise that from this article. But you shouldn't excise this. There's no justification. It's been multiply sourced here, on the talk page, and whatever bias you attribute to the source is not such that it justifies belief that the things actually didn't happen--we all believe the things I included in the paragraph, that they happened. -Kmaguir1 20:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See my responses to your stuff on that page. This has been excised because it is a bunch of unexplained rumors. The commencement speech booing is already mentioned on the page, we don't need it twice. The other stuff should be sourced to hooks directly and any criticism explained. Out of context partial quotes and summaries are bogus. The Austin Chronicle article, in fact, specifically says that she did not say what your edit claims that she did. As I said on the other page, if you are not willing to read the author, you have no business being so insistent about putting so-called "criticism" on her bio page.--csloat 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We do not all believe "the things" you included in "the paragraph" you wrote and recently reinserted, that they happened. My objection is not to the things, nor to their inclusion, but rather to your assertion that what you have written is a paragraph. The two sentences I've placed below could each evolve into a responsible paragraph. If you create one, I will be pleasantly surprised.--Anthony Krupp 07:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

She's a bitch, is that enough? Patriarch 11:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1's improvement-free criticism section (of 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 Aug so far)

Here:

She has written: "Blacks who lack a proper killing rage ... are merely victims." She also wrote an essay about a sociology professor who dreams about murdering an anonymous Caucasian on an airplane. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Ok. Neither sentence amounts to criticism. Why was it in a criticism section? I do not object to their inclusion in the article if they are embedded in a relevant paragraph and placed in an appropriate section of the article.--Anthony Krupp 07:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. On source 4: is a letter to the editor of sufficient note to include it in a biography? Do the wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons preclude including a source like this? Thanks to anyone for clarifying either question.--Anthony Krupp 07:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Until those comments are sourced from hooks herself, I am not sure why we need them here. The Austin Chronicle article talks about the commencement speech; the quote comes from Andrew Jones' anti-intellectual screed against "radicalism" at UCLA and the comment about her essay comes from "Accuracy in Academia." Andrew Jones alienated even the far right with his Orwellian attack on UCLA professors, and spying on their classes and distorting every word they say is a trick he learned from Reed Irvine who founded Accuracy in Academia. Whether or not hooks said these things, we don't need them quoted here out of context from McCarthyites who have as their mission to filter the words of academics in order to support character assassinations. If we want to put those quotes in there, or something like it, by all means let's have someone actually read the essay and quote it in context rather than summarizing a quote from someone who makes it a point to take her words out of context and portray them in the worst possible light.--csloat 07:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is certainly not a reliable source, by a longshot. The others are partisan, but probably not quite "extremist" in the sense of WP:RS. Btw. I think I figured out what I've done wrong in my last couple superfluous pseudo-reverts. I was looking at Kmaguir1's contribution history, and getting confused that I was looking at the article contribution history. Sloppy Lulu... LotLE×talk 07:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the AIA and Jones sources are "extremist" in the sense of the NeoNazi party or something, but my point is not that they are "extreme" -- my point is that their mission is character assassination. You want a sentence that says people like these are critical or this or that in hooks, that's fine, but we simply cannot take their summaries of her work as a reliable source for what she has to say. Especially when we actually have her work to refer to directly if we are confused about what she has to say. So perhaps a quote from Andrew's blog is notable (though I doubt it) if it is a quote from Andrew, but not if it is portrayed as a quote from hooks.--csloat 07:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course. All those Horowitz and Reed affiliated slander groups are quite poor source, just not "extremist" in the specific WP:RS sense. Such sources definitely must be used extremely cautiously, and only if supported independently, and especially only if the notability of a given topic is established without reference to those sources. LotLE×talk 07:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: if/when Kmaguir1 next inserts the same "paragraph," for which he is failing to get consensus, what would be an appropriate action? To just delete it? Pragmatically, that would suffice to improve the article. But when a user consistently ignores WP:CONSENSUS, is that grounds for a block, or some other consequence? Just wondering. Thanks for any illumination.--Anthony Krupp 07:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Their are conduct-related WP:RfC's for extreme situations, but I don't think this is one, at least not yet. Judging by his behavior on the Foucault and Butler pages, he's willing to back off when he has been shown wrong over and over again. At least so far - who knows what else he might have planned, for this page or those.--csloat 07:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1 claims: Still no consensus reached

There still has been no consensus reached on this page, and so I am reinserting the Criticism paragraph, but I agree with what someone mentioned earlier of the word itself "Criticism" being difficult, because the things inside the paragraph do not necessarily themselves represent 'criticism'. So I have instead, taking advice from this, decided to title it "Popular Controversy", which I think should cover it. I am not attached to that title--I'd like to have a debate over that issue. -Kmaguir1 02:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are failing to get consensus for your paragraph. That's a good sign you shouldn't keep inserting it day after day. In particular, you are ignoring discussion above, esp. on the redundancy of the first third of your text.--Anthony Krupp 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be getting close to user-conduct RfC time. Perhaps documenting these diffs on WP:ANI is a better first start. Perhaps a kindly admin would like to give him a good swift kick in the pants, and conceivably that would sink in. It's pretty clear that Kmaguir1 is going to earn himself a much longer term block that his 10 days before too long... it's just a question of how to minimize our troubles the meanwhile. LotLE×talk 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can always run to an admin about you too. All I do on here is edit, and edit well. If no one engages me, that's not my fault.-Kmaguir1 18:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the second and third sentences.--Anthony Krupp 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you dispute about the second and third sentences?-Kmaguir1 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That you edit well, and that it is not your fault.--Anthony Krupp 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that...well, we're not at an impasse yet. I asked you for possible solutions to get sentence three and four of the controversy section onto the page with some degree of consensus, and you haven't provided anything. So I'm here listening. As long as we're talking, you needn't worry about reverts--as long as we're talking.-Kmaguir1 21:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked you quite a while ago to make meaningful paragraphs out of two of the sentences you keep reinserting. As soon as you do so, I'll be glad to comment on them and help revise. Just as I've done on the JB page. Your failure to alter your text = stopping conversation.--Anthony Krupp 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no. The sentences contain meaning. You want them to mean more--so you either write the longer paragraphs, or advise me how the sentences there can develop a meaning that is more condusive for the page's future. The meaning behind sentences three and four, to me, is basically, [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff If you want to elaborate on that meaning by fleshing that statement out so it is more clear to more people that she's [removed as per WP:BLP] See diff , that's fine. But the meaning is there anyway, because of the nature of the things she said and she did. There's, as I see it, two big differences here between you and csloat, lulu and the rest. You want it to be more developed, more intricate, and they think, apparently, it's not well-sourced, or that the sources are biased, a sentiment which I disputed in that no one could dispute that these things were actually said or written by Miss hooks. That's what it comes down to--do you doubt the veracity of the sentences, or do you not think they survive on their own well?-Kmaguir1 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentences provide no context. That's why I've repeatedly asked you to give some context. Since you insist on adding the sentences, you can be expected to provide this context. In the case of Nussbaum a while ago, you provided a link to Nussbaum's text, such that I was able to read it and provide the context you were unwilling or unable to provide. In this case, I don't have a link, so can't do that for you.--Anthony Krupp 23:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I haven't done anything against Wikipedia in reverting on this page. As long as we're talking, we're in good shape to make consensus. You abandon consensus when the conversation stops.-Kmaguir1 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not violating 3RR is not the same as not violating consensus.--Anthony Krupp 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has engaged you Maguire. You are the one not engaging the arguments here.--csloat 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Abandonment of Consensus (happened a while back)

Abandonment of consensus has occured, and users are no longer working to obtain consensus with me, and instead are filing pointless RFC requests for intervention, calling me satan, and the like. So edits on bell hooks will continue, within Wikipedia guidelines and policies.-Kmaguir1 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We've been trying to get you to engage the discussion Maguire but you consistently refuse to.--csloat 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you filed an rfc with no attempt at arbitration--just, literally, arbitrarily.-Kmaguir1 23:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are attempts to discuss this all over this page, and all over your user page. If you want to discuss this, please do so. Anything about the RfC that needs to be discussed can be discussed over there. Thanks.csloat 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To Kmaguir1's credit, I am sitting here reading the line that says bell hooks desired to murder an anonymous white male. It is there, in a book she herself wrote, unless he or I are completely mistaken about the author. Shazbot85^Talk 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody suggested the line was not there.

Yes, you did.-Kmaguir1 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that it was taken out of context and quoted from a different author whose entire goal was character assassination. It would be as if all the George W Bush quotes on the Bush bio came from Noam Chomsky or Fidel Castro. The quotes may be accurate, but there is clearly an agenda at work in picking what to quote and what not to quote. I much prefer (as does everyone else here, apparently) if quotes from an author actually come from that author rather than their sworn enemy. Now that we have the actual quote, the next issue is whether it is a notable quote. If it is notable, what is it notable for? Maguire insists that it is a "popular controversy." I'm not aware of what is popular or controversial about it. Magquire tells us that Horowitz is angry because of that quote. I don't see how that is notable. Horowitz is critical of all liberal professors. Simply reading the quote does not make evident what the criticism is of her or among whom it is popular. Finally, I think everyone has a problem with the fact that Maguire seems to have trouble putting these thoughts into coherent sentences. A section like the one he most recently added was justly deleted in my mind not just for POV reasons but for simple grammatical and semantic reasons.--csloat 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no. It's notable. Someone threatening murder on someone else, who is a known academic with a tenured position, that is notable. It's not just about Horowitz thinking that what Hooks says is beyond the pail, although that is notable (have you LOOKED at his book sales, the internet mentions, etc.). I just went through this on Lulu's talk page, and this is the problem: this is one of Hooks' thoughts. There is no criticism here. This was the first line of the book (other than the introduction). It's one of her thoughts, namely, her longing to murder someone, as a thought, expressed by her as she's writing, and that belongs on the encyclopedia. I didn't make it notable, and Horowitz really didn't make it notable--Hooks made it notable. You think it's criticism because you think murdering people isn't good. But, in traditional Wikipedia style, I could not agree with you, and so, we get the subjective reality, not the objective truth. But this was expressed by her. First line of a chapter, it causes controversy that wasn't related to criticism directly, merely spreading Hooks' thoughts to the world. If y ou think it can be better related not in its own separate section, shoot. But Lulu was ignoring consensus completely. YOu asked me to do something, I did it, I put it in context. And now I've done that, and there's antoher problem you have, as I might have suspected, and I think that problem is stupid--of all the other thoughts Hooks has, for 6 billion people on the earth, this one is the MOST notable. To suggest that "Golemics (Los Angeles) released her first published work, a chapbook of poems titled "And There We Wept" (1978), and written under her pen name, bell hooks" is notable, and this, her wanting to murder an anonymous white male, isn't, then you shouldn't be criticizing my writing style (which was a problem basically of trying to put something in context that begins a chapter and basically the book), you should be criticizing your own sense. Basically, if this isn't notable, then none of the rest of the article is as notable, and non-notable things should be deleted, so why not do the nomination honors yourself, csloat?-Kmaguir1 05:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Has any crime novel, not begun with a murder? Seriously, what sort of twisted contortions are needed to go from a literary device of "I thought about murdering X" to a belief that the author actually plans to murder X, or even thinks that murdering X is a good thing?! We're not going bend the article to try to include some non-notable use of a rather banal literary device. LotLE×talk 05:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

ENTIRELY illogical. This, however, as you know, is not a work of fiction. It's a work about the 'killing rage', entirely non-fiction, and she goes on to explain and justify her feelings, and I'm not questioning those justifications--in fact, I presented them in an unbiased format. Your arguments are entirely beyond the pail. It's not a literary device. Murder is not onamatopoeia. This is non-sensical. I won't engage nonsense.-Kmaguir1 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should go write an expose on David Hume, whom you mention somewhere. He writes the shocking trivalization of murder: Wilful murder, for instance. Examine it in all lights, and see if you can find that matter of fact, or real existence, which you call vice. In which-ever way you take it, you find only certain passions, motives, volitions and thoughts. Maybe a headline: Hume's belief that murder is not a vice. Or maybe the Treatise of Human Nature is just a work of fiction? LotLE×talk 05:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant. Evading the issue.-Kmaguir1 05:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How many thoughts does hooks have a day? Are they all notable, Maguire? Please look at the rest of my arguments as you missed them all in your rant above.--csloat 05:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they're notable not because she thought them, but because she MENTIONED it her book! At the start of it (first chapter, not. inclu. introduction)!!! And by extension, Horowitz has reported on this is his book 100 Dangerous Professors, which has sold crazily, and it was in frontpagemag, etc. But the Horowitz is second--he pointed it out to the world, but Hooks did too. She thought this, put it at the front of the book, I draw Horowitz' problem with it, and then cite from the book, trying to put it in context. What more do you want her to say? This is post-9/11. You can't express a desire to stab someone on an airplane and have that not be notable. Maybe miss hooks belongs on the do-not-fly list. But this is all irrelevant. You never brought a concern of notability before, and there's no question that it's more notable than the other stuff in the article. Again, can you say that her publishing a chapbook is more notable than her expressing a desire to murder an anonymous white male, with all the circulation, and with Horowitz' having pointed it out, and millions knowing of it? Please. Do you want Horowitz' circulation? Do you want ???? I mean, you are not amenable. Again, if it's not notable, then the entire article isn't notable, and so again, either add the section back, modified for your grammar concerns, or nominate the whole ball of wax for deletion as non-notable... because "longing to murder" an anonymous white man on an airplane, nothing hooks does, in her academic career, is every going to be more notable than that to more people.-Kmaguir1 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

She mentions a lot in the book; how many pages is it? Shall we include every thought? Your claim that because it is post-9/11 you shouldn't be expressing your thoughts sounds a little Orwellian to me. Your claims about Horowitz are just that - claims about Horowitz. Below I showed pretty conclusively how Horowitz has taken her claim out of context rather maliciously. As for your comment that having once had a violent thought is more notable than everything in hooks' academic career, I don't know what to say. I have read three of her books in different classes in graduate school, and where I teach there are many graduate students reading her work and discussing it in classes. Not once have I heard or participated in a discussion about this single thought. Hooks has been extremely influential among the critical pedagogy set, and I doubt it has anything to do with this impulse she claims to have once had. If you take a look at peer-reviewed publications in the field I doubt you would find a single discussion of this thought hooks once had. Yet you will find many discussions of her thoughts on racism and teaching techniques. So, you are just flat out wrong about that. But of course you are; you rely solely on Horowitz's attack book, which is pure character assassination (and there is no way in hell such a book would ever survive peer review).--csloat 11:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I Did What You Wanted Me to Do

Hey, listen up. I went out, and I went and got the stupid Marxist book, and I found the line. And more to boot. I did what you wanted, I put it in context, and then who deletes it? Lulu. I am really at the entire of the line with her, and will take necessary action such as an rfc, or simply starting up a conversation on the administrators dialogue. She could not have been familiar with the anthony krupp, csloat, kmaguir1 consensus of providing the original source (hooks' book) and putting it in context. I am most displeased here. There will have to be accountability for this.-Kmaguir1 04:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It must be terrible to have to tarnish your room with a book (maybe even your mind too). But the line is still undue weight and unencyclopedic. Finding an out of context quote for sole purpose of trying to smear a biography subject ain't ever gonna become NPOV. Conceivably the line could become relevant if placed in a genuine context of its relation to hooks' thought, but just as imaginary source of a feigned "controversy", you're right that I won't let it in.

Have fun with your administrator. Hopefully s/he can straighten you out a bit on what it means to write an encyclopedia. LotLE×talk 04:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You can feel that. That's fine. but it's not consensus. the consensus of the community, if you bothered to look for it, was for me to find the comment in the book, cite it, and then to put it on the page in context. I more than satisfied all of those obligations. And since the comment about the anonymous white male led off the first chapter, you can imagine the difficulty of putting something that essentially begins the book (there was an introduction before it) in context, as krupp wanted. It's Hooks' POV that you have a problem with, not mine. That is her thought--she said she longed to murder someone--that's one of her thoughts. If you have a problem with that thought, welcome to the club. If you don't, great. But regardless, it's hugely controversial, extremely notable, as Horowitz noted. Does she have more developed thoughts than those which revolve around murdering an anonymous white male? Well, one would hope so. But that doesn't at all mitigate, not in the slightest, from this belonging here in the article, as sourced, directly from the source, and being controversial to anyone who thinks that murdering people is objectively not a good thing. -Kmaguir1 05:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide a well-written and NPOV summary of the entire book, I would not object to including that line from chap 1 as part of it. A short footnote to Horowitz' objections to it could even fit in that context. Otherwise, you're just writing about Horowitz... and if so, the place for it is in the article David Horowitz. It's not anything "hugely controversial" or "extremely notable"... it's something that most people (like me) who have read a couple of hooks' books, and vaguely followed her career had never heard of, and that would earn a passing yawn when we do hear of it. LotLE×talk 05:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it seems that Kmaguir1 is confusing (1) reporting on controversy with (2) summarizing an author's work(s). He seems interested in providing a truncated summary for the sole intent of creating controversy. Seems flawed.--Anthony Krupp 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, no. I don't think book sections are appropriate for this article, and am not qualified to write them. It's more notable than the other content on the page for more people. Again, the page is not FOR hooks or FOR her followers, and certainly not for academic tribute or justice to her. It's for 6 billion people. And 6 billion people think that her saying she wants to murder someone is more notable than that she had a chapbook of her poems published in 1978. Again, you want special treatment for academics, because you are one. I propose you do this: just edit articles on non-academics. That will minimize your problems greatly. Start the revolucion, go edit articles that you can make non-biased and NPOV for the entire community, and not just for the best-case scenario. You don't have to be accountable for Hooks--she has be accountable for herself. She thinks this. Great. I am not judging. Let the 6 billion judge--let me just neutrally report. Your comments hinge on inherent bias of anyone not associated with her thought, but to associate with her thought, I have to be biased in favor of her--the ultimate in self-defeating argument. Maybe some logic classes would assist? Hume's finite list reports back 6 billion times that a notable prof saying she wants to kill an anonymous white man IS notable, and is significant. If you want to reduce everything down to logic and math, go do that. But you can't tell me that other stuff in this article is notable, and that she wanted to kill an anonymous black male sitting next to her on an airplane, apparently twice?, with a gun she didn't have? Not notable? To whom? Anyone ever?-Kmaguir1 05:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in one thing, you do not seem qualified to write about this book here. I don't know why you think that makes you qualified to write about one out of context sentence from it though. I'm also not sure why you are speaking for "6 billion people" who you think agree with you about something. Look, first, read the book rather than looking up a sentence you find "notable." Then, take a writing class or something. Then try to summarize the main point of the book - you might find that your contributions are longer lived. You might also explain on this talk page what you think makes this thing notable rather than repeating it as if it were self-evident. I really don't think anyone is objecting to including it here; it is the incoherent yet rabidly POV way in which you keep including it that is leading to problems.--csloat 05:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in the article.

The source in question is verifiable. Whether the manner in which is was included is in agreement with consensus is up for debate, but I think the information should be included. hooks really did write that, and it is published. How can we include this in the article is what I would like to come to a consensus on. Shazbot85^Talk 04:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is notable, but if we want to include it somewhere, how about in a summary of her written works? It is reasonable to have a list of works with brief summaries, and I see no reason that a summary of that work (along with any evidence of "popular controversy" arising from it) couldn't be included in such a section. I would continue to object to its inclusion, however, in a section implying that a quote from her work is a criticism of it. I would also object to its inclusion in a paragraph that reads as if it were translated from Italian into English by someone who only speaks Arabic. --csloat 05:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing this. Read above. It's not being offered as criticism--it's one of her thoughts, put into context, being labelled as controversial and popular. That's all that's being done. And that's entirely reasonable.-Kmaguir1 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that there is nothing "popular" or "controversial" about it.--csloat 05:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, can we edit what was originally said into something we can agree to include? I would be ok in including it in a summary of that work as I think it illustrates her POV sufficiently for the reader. Shazbot85^Talk 05:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it; I am happy to look at anyone else's attempt to make something useful out of this.--csloat 05:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hooks has been a subject of ire for the extreme manner she has illustrated her beliefs. [5] In her book, Killing Rage, hooks describes a situation where she is "sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder" as a result of a boarding pass dispute involving her friend. hooks, bell. ''Killing Rage'', p. 8. Henry Holt & Co. New York, NY. 1995

There's a start, I'm not confident that it is a finished product by any means. Please critque and add/change what you feel will help. I simply attempted to make it less aggressive and more neutral, simply stating the fact that she has caused some controversy, and including an illustration from her book. -Shazbot85^Talk 05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's better than what KMaguire keeps adding, but still weak. "Extreme" is POV and debatable. It also should be said whose ire we are talking about. The quote does not seem explanator or even connected - another sentence such as "Horowitz (or whoever) has cited this passage as an example of extremism on her part" might be helpful. Frankly, I still don't see the notability in this; like Lulu, I am no fan of or expert on hooks; I read a few of her books in graduate school and have heard her speak at conferences but that's about it - so perhaps there is a groundswell of discussion about this that I am unaware of - but I fail to see why this literary device merits more than a shrug.--csloat 06:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone can provide some context for the line, that would probably help nurse this along and get it into the article. I'm guessing there is a sociological or political factor that's being illustrated in some way here. I'm confident I probably don't agree with it, but I'll agree it's probably present. I doubt that professors go around seriously considering committing random homocide, but I don't doubt that some professors go around saying shocking things to illustrate points and possibly cause some comotion or emotional reaction. Shazbot85^Talk 05:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some context would be helpful here. I also agree that this is something that was likely said for shock value, but I don't know what it is illustrating, or what including it here will illustrate.--csloat 06:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think inclusion illustrates her style of writing and sharing of her ideas. I think its' notable that a writer seems to frequently resort to violent or derrogatory illustrations to show a point. Shazbot85^Talk 06:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that she "frequently" resorts to anything - we are talking about a single passage in a book that happens to be about violent rage. I don't think it is strange at all for an author writing about violent rage to actually discuss violent rage.

Good point: the book's title is Violent Rage. It's becoming clearer to me that someone should start a section on her works, providing summaries and discussions of the works themselves and the discussions they have engendered. As soon as I finish my own book, I might be able to help. Have never read hooks before, BTW.--Anthony Krupp 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I fiddled with the paragraph that has been added, putting her quotes in context (I found the intro to this book here; someone with the actual book should double check it). It is absolutely dishonest and malicious to quote that passage as if it were just about disputes over seating. That is the problem I have been talking about - when you have a quote from an author and the source of the quote is that author's enemy, they are bound to get something wrong, intentionally or no (in this case, I have to say, it seems obviously intentional). I invite anyone to read the intro at the link above and compare it to Horowitz's (or is it Glazov's) summary. I think this is pretty conclusive evidence that we cannot take what Horowitz says hooks says at face value.

But there are other problems with this section still:

(1) What precisely is "popular" and what precisely is "controversial" about this stuff? Nobody but Horowitz and his friends seem to care about this passage, and there is no evidence of any "controversy" outside the pages of Frontpage magazine. It is misleading to have a section like this. I was tempted to change it to "McCarthyite Attacks" or something of the sort but that would be way too POV. I still think we should instead have a section on her work, with a few sentences about Killing Rage along with her other (more widely read) books.

(2) What does it mean to say she has been the "subject of ire"? Whose ire? There are three sources named; they are all far right wing pundits, and at least two of them work together. Frankly, she is the target of a right wing smear campaign, not a "subject of ire." Find a NPOV way to make this point and we will reach consensus more quickly.

(3) I want to either remove or explain the currently nonsensical statement that Horowitz "mocks her claim that 'it is difficult not to hear in standard English always the sound of slaughter and conquest.'" What does this mean? That the English language sounds like slaughter? Does Horowitz cite a source for this quote so we can look it up, and see if he is again maliciously wrenching her ideas out of context in order to launch another character attack?

I still think this section is not notable, but others seem to disagree, so I think if we can address the above three points we might be able to move forward.--csloat 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to come here by kmaguir1 and help out with some of the consensus (note: I'm not an admin or anyone particularly special). I've read the article and read through the discussion page twice- the conclusion that I've come to is that the people criticizing the passage in the book are largely right wing pundits. This is what I have gathered:

1. At the start of a book, the author mentioned wanting to kill a white man
2. Several right wingers disliked this.

I believe the following things:

1. Since she's drawn (what appears to be) significant attention of the right wing, it is appropriate to mention this, although I'm not sure if it merits its own section due to the criticism being from one specific group.
2. If it does merit its own section, it should not be named "Popular Controversey." Since she has drawn the attention of what appears to be only the right wing, titling the section "Popular Controversy" is an extreme misnomer- "popular" implies that there is a broad group of people that consider her to be controversial. Note that "popular" doesn't necessarily have to mean "a lot"- in this case it might be better to name it something like "Criticism from the right wing" or "Criticism from the far right."

• Right wing is better than far right, but I'm amenable to this.-Kmaguir1 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Similarly, we should probably mention any praise that she's gotten for her work- it only seems fair to provide both sides of the argument here.

• Absolutely I would accept this into the article.-Kmaguir1 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Mention specifically why the critics disliked it- are they criticizing stereotyping of blacks? Encouraging violence against whites? Shoddy writing? Using an extreme angle to make a point?

• I think they're claiming a bit of the first two--that yes, that it stereotypes when that is precisely what shouldn't be done, and yes, the second one is huge, yes, that it encourages violence against whites.-Kmaguir1 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Explicitly state the exact context of the quote and its relevance to the book- if the killing rage is used as a metaphor, or as some other plot device integral to the story, then the reader should know. If the critics missed the point entirely, mention that too (provided it can be sourced).

• I address this below--there is no point missed, largely. She put it at the beginning of the chapter, the first chapter of the book not the introduction, and again, consensus has tried its best to put it in context.-Kmaguir1 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1. If possible, some criticisms of the criticism. I don't know about you, but when the titles of the books criticising her are Hating Whitey: And Other Progressive Causes, Top 10 Most Dangerous Academics in America, and Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, it's pretty clear that the critics had an agenda from the get go. We'll definitely have to mention that they're all from the right wing too- again, we don't want to mislead readers into thinking that their sentiments are representative of the whole. In this case, not mentioning that the critics are right wing pundits strikes me deliberately with-holding information, and in my opinion this would be borderline weaseling in that it has the intention of misleading a reader through manipulation of words and information.

Anyway, my two cents. --Wafulz 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is here is that hooks herself can't decide what she is notable for. She thought this, she expressed it in her book, and so, when it is raised by someone else, the question is not what their intentions are, but what hooks' are. This is why user:csloat and user:Anthony_Krupp were so vehement that it be originally sourced, so that we could rule out bad intentions. When I found the book, the Horowitz comment was showed to be accurate. The problem was expounded with context in that it's difficult to put into context a passage that occurs as the first line of a book, to give the best version of a justification. This is what I tried, and I think uucp's job far surpasses mine for breadth and clarity. And so, to determine if it's notable, we have to ask if this criticism is popular, so whether or not Horowitz is popular, and I think we have determined that--the book appeared on TV, Horowitz is a bestselling author, this book does far better than even Hooks' do. And we have determined notability by a google search on it. Notability was never a concern for anyone here until there was verifiability--that is, we could determine just what Hooks herself said. I think the problem people have with it is just the statement itself--the statement is notable. But again, it's not about what we feel about it, it's about what is notable that can be cited surrounding criticism of it. And I would not oppose a shift to a title of "Criticism", because I think that's what we have started to have here. But it's not our criticism--it's Horowitz', and it's explained. Of course, the thing that will happene if more of Horowitz is added in (and I think that not necessary) is that Lulu and the rest will go back to arguing for exclusion based on bias. Well, again, there's no bias in that Horowitz actually represents what hooks says--his intentions can only be determined, are only relevant, for whether he went through the material well, which he seems to have in this case. We can't be wily in criticizing his concern, when really, it's a popular criticism that's going to qualify anyway. Two contentions I have: one, that the sentence is notable, and two, that the fact that the sentence, and others', and hooks' general ideology, was chronicled by horowitz, makes it notable. So pick either--both stand alone pretty well. Again, and there's the fundamental problem of how someone can say that the fact she "had a chapbook of poems published in 1978" is relevant, but her wanting to murder an anonymous white male in the context of an airplane seat dispute is not relevant. I further have difficulty with the claim that it is has to be put in context with the entirety of the book, although I agree that would be largely preferrable. But again, it's not necessary as long as we put it context surrounding that particular vignette in the book. If I want to include a story about Billy Graham from his youth on his project page, I don't have to put it in context with the rest of the book--if the story is notable, well-discussed among the Christian community, you don't need an examination of the entire book to justify putting it in. I'm deeply concerned here that the participants on the other side of the Butler, Foucault, and hooks debate, that they have in mind a special standard for academics and artists--Lulu has gone and written an article stating that. But it is not Wikipedia policy, so she can't make it as such. The bottom line is that its sourced, its relevant criticism, and all they really have to fall back on now, is "it doesn't engage her work", which there is no Wikipedia policy that it has to do--just Lulu's essay and opinion.-Kmaguir1 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Maguir; when you looked up the quote all you did was confirm that the words were on the page. When I looked up the quote, which was easy enough to find online, I actually read the introduction, and learned that Horowitz had maliciously wrenched hooks' words out of their original context. You attribute the expansion of the quote to uucp, but his version had the same version of the quote and added another quote from horowitz, likely out of context as well (to be clear, I am saying horowitz likely took hooks out of context, not that uucp took horowitz out of context). I am the one who added the context that helps explain that this was not just a random thought about murdering white guys (you'd have to look to Stephen King for such passages) but rather a comment on the deep psychological impacts of racism and sexism in American society.--csloat 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, I don't really have a dog in this race, but I disagree with a few points above.

• The title "popular controversy" distinguishes it from "academic controversy," not "unpopular controversy". I don't know that there is better way to phrase this, and I would leave it as it is.
• The right-wing leanings of her critics are already tagged, and clear on their own wikipedia pages. Referring to them as "far right wing" or similarly trying to explain away their opposition feels very POV to me. Let their words stand for themselves; readers can judge the names of their books the same way you did.
• I lean against "explicitly stat[ing] the exact context of the quote and its relevance to the book" and similar expansions you suggest, because they would tend to make the "controversies" section very long, such that it would dominate a reader's impression of the article, suggesting that BH lives in a storm of opposition. In an admittedly quick scan through the literature, I see no evidence of such a storm, so an expansion might be misleading, even if each point added were accurate.

Uucp 13:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your #1 and #3 are contradictory. If this is a "popular controversy" then, yes, one could say she lives in a "storm of opposition." I agree with you she does not. I prefer the current title, whoever changed it -- "Criticism of cultural conservatives." Also, your claim #3, that you don't want to quote the passage in context, seems to me profoundly unwise. It is a license for dishonest and manipulative citation of the work. You excised some of the quote claiming that it was an attempt to "defend" hooks. If quoting her accurately rather than maliciously distorting what she has to say is a "defense," fine. The inaccurate quotation that Horowitz uses, as I argued, is a pretty obvious example of such distortion. I am very comfortable taking the position that we either quote her accurately or not at all.-csloat 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You honestly think that the existence of any public controvery equals "living in a storm of opposition"? However, I agree with you that the current title of the section is fine. Uucp 21:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Version

I believe the current version, placed on the page by Uucp, it is much better than I wrote, in that it adds more context and avoids some of the grammatical difficulties I encountered in trying to show how difficult it is to provide context to something that is placed at the beginning of the book. As far as I'm concerned, I totally endorse the current version of the article as a consensus version. Cheers, -Kmaguir1 17:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Still endorse, although quotation boxes are sorely overused.-Kmaguir1 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. Looks great to me, thanks for the help. Shazbot85^Talk 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what you mean by the "current version." This version looks much better to me than the "popular controversies" version that maguir added. There are still problems though - the part about English sounding like slaughter needs to be explained. Someone needs to find what the heck Horowitz is quoting; again, I suspect he has taken her out of context, and that the passage will have at least a slightly different meaning when we look at it in context. It looks like it was added by uucp; so perhaps he can tell us where horowitz gets that quote from?csloat 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to respond to every criticism of hooks; that's not wikipedia's job. If bh makes a public response to any of these things, it seems reasonable to include that in the article. If she hasn't, then it's POVish and smacks of original research for us to respond on her behalf.

Putting it another way, it may be that Horowitz took something out of context, I don't know; but if we're going to respond to every criticism in the "criticisms of bh" section, we're also obligated to criticize every commendation in the "accomplishments of bh" section. Uucp 21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is defending her; the point is we cannot pretend she said something she didn't say. Horowitz wrenched her words out of context; to cite them here without comment is ridiculously POV. To add the context of her quote is not a defense; it simply allows the reader to see what she actually said.--csloat 21:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in this dialog, Commodore Sloat. I find it significant that you assert that bh's words were "wrenched out of context" immediately after saying that you had no idea where the "slaughter" quotation comes from. Perhaps no context is needed. It is further interesting that you choose such emotionally laden words to express your idea. It reads to me as though you think bh is under attack, and that feel you must defend her. However, that is not the role of wikipedia. Take, for example, the Adam Clymer article. He was publicly called an "asshole" and a "major league" asshole by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, respectively, on the basis of his work for the New York Times. The wikipedia article appropriately reports this fact, but does not present the text of every article that Clymer wrote about the Bush administration, the words of questions he asked of cabinet members at press conferences, or the substance of his dialog with advisors to the administration, all of which a reader would need to fairly evaluate whether or not Clymer is, in fact, a "major league asshole." Nor does Wikipedia provide any kind of advocacy on Clymer's behalf; there is no catalog of his writings on the subject of the Bush administration and evaluation of their fairness; there is no examination of his charitable givings or kindness to children and animals, or other data that the reader could use in deciding whether or not Bush and Cheney had correctly labelled Mr. Clymer.

The notable fact is that Clymer was criticized. Had he, or somebody else notable, come to his public defense, that would have been notable too. Anything else does not belong here.

Perhaps, if you feel readers may be led dangerously astray in their evaluation of bh by the criticisms quoted in this article, you can create a blog or other personal webpage, and argue against them there. I don't think it belongs in this article though. I will keep my eyes open for a response by bh to Horowitz and the others. As far as I can see, she hasn't bothered yet, so why should we? Uucp 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps no context is needed"? I think some is needed, since otherwise the words make no sense. Do you think hooks believes that English words literally sound like the sounds of people being slaughtered? Come on. You're twisting my words to make a bizarre point. It's obvious bh is under attack by Horowitz, and it's obvious from the very title of his book. I am not "defending" her; I am simply insisting that her words be sourced to her if we are going to quote her. I don't understand what you find offensive about that, and I don't understand what it has to do with Clymer. If Horowitz calls her a "major league asshole," and people judge that to be notable, I have no objection to including that. But if Horowitz says she says "Bush... is an ... asshole" when what she actually said was "Bush has trouble with the English language, and his diction is an amalgamation of east coast country club dialect and phony Texan drawl, sounding like it was coming out of his asshole rather than his mouth," then, yes, I think the entire statement should be quoted and that we should not pretend without comment that Horowitz's quote was correct. The example at hand is only slightly less egregious than the hyperbolic hypothetical I just used. I have said this about twenty times now; maybe if it is in bold face you will pay attention: I have no problem with legitimate criticism of hooks here. What I have a problem with are false claims about what she said or did not say.--csloat 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well here, I have to defend uucp positions, and simply state what csloat is trying to do, which is evade the issue. Yes, I agree with csloat, taking things out of context like the example she cited, "Bush ... is an ... asshole" is inappropriate. But see here, I added the context of the passage. But you can't say that providing the context in the entire book is appropriate--that's ridiculous, and ignores the Horowitz notability. I made a good faith effort to edit well, and put context in, which was awkward as it led off the book. You need to try to put things in context, but succeed at not taking anything out of context. That is what has been acheived here. I couldn't be happier. And yes, letting someone save face is in my encyclopedia of possible emotions.-Kmaguir1 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I added the context, not you. You never added the context. You went and found the book and confirmed that the words were on the page and then put in the exact same quote you had before. I didn't question the faith of your effort, but come on. How am I evading the issue here? The Bush example I gave is, as I said, only slightly less egregious than the one Horowitz used. His quote made it sound like she is some kind of racist mass murderer who wants to kill white people for sport. By adding more of the quote in, we see that her encounter with this particular white man is an allegory for the ways in which white supremacist society affects the individual psyche. Now, I don't necessarily agree with her on that point, but that is her point, and Horowitz's claim is a cheap and insulting caricature of that point. I'm not sure what saving face has to do with any of this.--csloat 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that lovely standard English quote stands on its own fine: it is difficult not to hear in standard English always the sound of slaughter and conquest. The funny thing is that as hard as Horowitz tries to wrench an isolated remark from its context, it is still completely clear just how profound hooks' analysis of this point is (and what a pompous asshole Horowitz is for being unable to understand it). Language incorporates histories in deep ways, not just in vocabularies and syntactic constructs, but also in the pragmatics of its usage... as a recent WP frontpage article might put it, hooks sees the fnords. LotLE×talk 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural conservatives

I don't think that merely mentioning Schweitzer means we have to find some specific point. I'm not sure that he's notable particularly, but if we allow a section on this group of people (which I'm OK with now that the hooks quotes explains the actual meaning of her thought), listing another as "btw. this guy is also in the clique" isn't anything different. Unless you genuinely think Schweitzer did not actually criticize hooks, of course. LotLE×talk 04:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's not clear to me that Schweitzer is notable enough to mention. But given that Glazov's only claim to noteriety is being a hack who works for Horowitz, I guess the standards for these things are low. LotLE×talk 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Schweitzer accuses her of hypocrisy for some quotation about "wanting a man" (sorry, I don't have the exact text), despite her otherwise strong feminist rhetoric. As for his notability, (1) he has published five books since 1993, all with major publishers, (2) his current book has sold scads of copies, and peaked at #2 in Amazon rankings, according to titlez.com. (3) if you think he is not notable, suggest an afd vote on his page; I'm sure it will fail, given the things I've just mentioned.

For what it's worth, the best any of bell hooks's books have done is #639 on Amazon (for "Feminism is for everybody"), though she probably sells more through academic bookstores than he does, so it isn't an entirely fair comparison. Uucp 10:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When hooks was assigned in my graduate seminars, there was no amazon.com at all. Such stats tell you close to nothing.--csloat 06:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Schweitzer

I ordered a copy of his book at my local bookstore, so that I could get the complete text of his criticism and provide an accurate citation.

I felt like a teenage boy asking a pharmacist for a package of condoms.

UUCP: "Ummm... Do you have a copy of [mumbling] 'Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy' by Peter Schweitzer."

Clerk: "WHAT?"

UUCP: "I'm looking for a book called [mumbling some more] 'Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy'."

Clerk: "PROFILES IN COURAGE?"

UUCP: "No, uh, "

Clerk: "BY ALBERT SCHWEITZER?"

UUCP: "No, this thing... [pointing to the name of the book on a printout]."

Clerk: "OH, DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO, PROFILES IN LIBERAL HYPOCRISY. WE'RE ALL SOLD OUT BUT WE CAN ORDER IT FOR YOU."

sigh. Uucp 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And now all for nothing, as Lawyer2Be already owns the book! Uucp 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL... tells you something about the quality of the thinking that inhabits the pages within, no?--csloat 06:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell. Was that supposed to be a slight at me? Lawyer2b 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not from me anyway. I just don't usually buy books with such polemical titles. Uucp 13:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor from me.... my comment was also directed at the title.--csloat 15:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism from conservatives" versus "Criticism"

I don't believe the issue of criticism should be cast in such a black and white, "your side / my side" light. Just for the record, I identify more with the "left" than the "right", so please don't mistake this for some freeper invasion. Reminding the readers of "who is who" just casts a petty, immature slant to the article. Let their words and wikilinks speak for themselves. --Action Jackson IV 21:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)