Wikipedia talk:Counter-Essay on Academic and Artistic Biographies

message: :"hooks has been a subject of David Horowitz' ire for her leftist beliefs. She gave a commencement speech in 2002 at Southwestern University (TX), where she was currently employed, which was roundly booed by the audience. During the speech she suggested that the students would have been better off not having attended college, and their parents not having sent them there. She wrote an essay about a sociology professor who dreams about murdering an anonymous Caucasian on an airplane. "
:This was part of 'Criticism' section newly created by Kmaguir1. See the discussion page at the hooks article.--Anthony Krupp 23:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point.  His claim that facts cannot be POV totally ignores the fact that any choice of facts is inherently POV.  Also, see my comments above re: sourcing.  If hooks said something notable, quote her, not an out of context and butchered sentence quoted by someone else an essay that appears to be nothing but character assassination.  If you don't want to read hooks, and all you have read is Horowitz's ethopoeia, my contention is that you really have no business insisting on particular edits on the bell hooks page.  I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the page, only that you shouldn't aggressively insist on inserting material from such sources without even bothering to take the time to figure out if such material is accurate at all.--csloat 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been multiply sourced. -Kmaguir1 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "it"?--Anthony Krupp 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims made in the criticism section; they're multiply sourced. Just look at the talk page. -Kmaguir1 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have read both talk pages. See my recent edits, which attempt to report on a controversial event with a neutral POV. Not the same as citing someone's ire concerning someone's "leftist beliefs." Kmaguir1's summary of the speech also does not fit the three sources proffered. It particularly leaves out the bit where hooks encourages students “to realize the essential goodness of your being.”--Anthony Krupp 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, see, that's relatively non-controversial. If Ted Kaczynski's toilet paper preference is on his page, cut it out. Get rid of it. That's not noteworthy, but saying "Blacks who lack the proper killing rage... are merely victims" IS noteworthy. What it comes down to is Lulu, and others, want a completely unacceptable thing, which is total immunity for academics and artists as distinct, in that the criticism of them must be, according to Lulu, csloat, and others, academic or artistic. This is ridiculous--if I want to cite original criticism of the Eiffel Tower by the majority of Parisiens immediately after its construction, should that be cut out because it's not an architectural criticism focused on the specific style of structure, its function? No. What is wanted here is a complete immunity from popular endorsement OR criticism OR both with respect to all academics and artists. And that cannot be allowed. -Kmaguir1 05:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have now seen in two cases (Judith Butler and bell hooks), I have participated in elaborating criticism of both. I think that both instances (Nussbaum and the speech) are noteworthy. I agree with you on that much. But compare my edits to those sections with yours. Not that I'm perfect or anything, but I would submit that my summaries attempt to report from a NPOV.--Anthony Krupp 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Hi. Some thoughts on these counter essays, for whatever they're worth. I think essay 2 conflates two different distinctions: POV vs. neutrality on one hand, subjective opinion vs. objective (or intersubjective) truth on the other. An encyclopedia isn't really in the business of reporting the truth, because that's often contested. What an encyclopedia should do is report the major controversies over what the truth is, from a neutral point of view, i.e. without taking any side in the controversy. This doesn't speak particularly to the issue of academic and artistic biogs, though. There, the question is what is relevant? In the discussion of Lulu's essay, I suggested that this question should be answered with reference to the purpose of such biogs, which in my view is to provide 'an accurate, neutral, accessible summary of [the subject's] work, and of its place and influence in their discipline and in wider culture'. I'm not clear, to be honest, whether Kmaguire1 disagrees about the purpose - i.e. s/he thinks, for instance, that biogs should offer a moral judgement on their subjects - or whether s/he think that purpose is best served by an extremely inclusive policy on criticism - i.e. that all sourced criticism, however marginal or partisan it might be, should be included. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts