Talk:Bell hooks/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A reconsideration. 

message: 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.    
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I dispute the second and third sentences.--Anthony Krupp 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you dispute about the second and third sentences?-Kmaguir1 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That you edit well, and that it is not your fault.--Anthony Krupp 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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,  If you want to elaborate on that meaning by fleshing that statement out so it is more clear to more people that she's , 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Everyone has engaged you Maguire.  You are the one not engaging the arguments here.--csloat 18:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kmaguir1 claims: Still no consensus reached

message: 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)
replies: text: And now all for nothing, as Lawyer2Be already owns the book! Uucp 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL... tells you something about the quality of the thinking that inhabits the pages within, no?--csloat 06:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell.  Was that supposed to be a slight at me? Lawyer2b 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not from me anyway. I just don't usually buy books with such polemical titles. Uucp 13:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Criticism from conservatives" versus "Criticism"