Talk:Bell hooks/Archive 4

There are many reasons to criticize hooks' ideas, spelled out in work written by actual intellectuals who have engaged her work directly rather than writing scurrilous slander for feeble birdcage liner like Frontpage Magazine. It turns out here that the only information in this section was inserted by a suspected sockpuppeteer and consists completely of assertions from Frontpage. I would like to delete it but I don't want to be accused of removing criticism of her -- I think anyone who has actually read hooks or her scholarly critics might find there are a lot more useful things to put in this section than Glazov's fantasies from Horowitz's rag. This article presents a far more balanced report of her 2002 commencement address to southwestern, where she did not say the things Glazov claims. And Reverend Alan Taylor notes that the speech was criticized because hooks "dared to disturb": One prophetic voice is that of bell hooks, a prolific writer and a professor of education and black feminist studies. Two years ago she was asked to give the commencement speech at Southwestern University, a liberal arts school in Georgetown, Texas, where she had been a visiting professor. She didn’t give a tepid, feel good speech so common for the occasion. Instead she dared to disturb. She acknowledged that some students indulge “in Wthe basic violence of self-betrayal – going along to get along, going along with the crowd, conforming.” She talked about government sponsored violence, oppression, and death in which she criticized, “every imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal nation on the planet” for teaching citizens “to care more for tomorrow than today.” And she advised the crowd to treasure their relationships, to build community, and to “critically review” their college years with the hopeful intention “to realize the essential goodness of your being.” The audience booed her. Newspaper articles and letters slandered her. But she left knowing she spoke the truth as it has been revealed to her through experience and reason. Of course, I could just insert these things in the article. But do we really need this much detail about a commencement speech in 2002? I'd rather just delete this section altogether until someone researches some legitimate criticism from reliable sources. What do others think?--csloat 08:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

All of the material is reliable, none of the material you cited goes against the material that's currently on the page. You're trolling my user edits, and I'm about fed up with it. -Kmaguir1 16:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one trolling - you've been blocked for trolling and sockpuppeteering. My point here is that the criticism is bogus and comes from a non-reliable source.  There are two ways to deal with this: (1) delete it, or (2) balance it with the info that refutes it, which I cited above.  I think there should be a criticism section, but it should not be full of bogus name-calling from a partisan rag.  It should have actual criticism from people actually familiar with the work they are criticizing.  I don't think her commencement in 2002 is important enough to take up all of the criticism section, but if it is, we should put in the information I cited above as well.  My preference is to delete this nonsense and look up actual criticism of her views published by people who actually know what they are talking about.  Make sense?--csloat 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Besides your opinion what evidence do you have that Frontpage is a not a reliable source, that its criticism of Hooks is "bogus", and that she didn't say what Frontpage says she said. While strongly conservative, I'm not aware of Frontpage's reputation for printing blatant lies. 2) Please point out the "name-calling" you claim fills the criticism section.  3)  There were other critics of Hooks' commencement speech, including Accuracy in Academia. Lawyer2b 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (1)The article I cited from the newspaper specifically says she did not say the things frontpage accuses her of - I will fix this in the article. Frontpage is not a reliable source according to WP standards; see WP:RS. (2) the name-calling is in the frontpage article cited; the "summary" of what she supposedly said in that speech is based in this name-calling.  (3) Accuracy in Academia was started by the same group of people who started Frontpage, as I recall... hard to tell as there is next to nothing on their deceptive domain name about it.  It's been a while; I remember them from the 1980s, when Reed Irvine was there, sending spies into classes to pretend to be students to document professrs' alleged leftist beliefs.  They are certainly not a WP:RS either.  But look, I'm not a stickler for so-called "neutral" sources; I think it is reasonable to include citations to such sources when useful, but I don't see how it's useful here.  Much more useful would be actual criticism of hooks' work written by people who actually know what the hell they're talking about.  People reacting "oh god she's a leftist!  burn her!" really isn't that helpful.  Anyway, I'll try to make some changes, but, again, I'm not trying to delete valid criticism.  I just don't see any valid criticism here; all I see is some people who didn't like a speech she gave in 2002.  I will definitely remove the assertion about the "kill whitey" story, which is completely unhelpful here.  It's not a criticism, it doesn't reference any actual story that hooks wrote; it is at best third-hand gossip (why not cite the alleged story?), takes it out of context, and it never even frames any actual criticism based on the claim that she wrote such a story.--csloat 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 0) I have to say, this is a good laugh. While assuming good faith that it may not be intentional on your part, your edits to the section come across as some of the most transparently biased I have run into in wikipedia.   While almost in the same breath explaining how the entire section is so non-notable so as to merit deletion, you affront yourself and greatly enlarge the section by adding two huge direct quotes, equally sympathetic to her performance and both of which could have very easily been summarized.  Ah yes, and now that the only criticism has been diluted into appearing only to be a sentence or two in an entire section of otherwise glowing reviews, what better justification than to eliminate the name "criticism" from the section entirely!  Well done, sir!  I take notes when I'm obviously in the presence of a master!  LOL Lawyer2b 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) 1) I'm sorry, I'm not a very good critical reader.  I missed the exact part of WP:RS that makes it clear Frontpage.com should be considered an unreliable source.  Would you be so kind as to point it out? Lawyer2b 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you tell us what makes Frontpage reliable?--csloat 08:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL yourself, lawyer boy. I just read your edits to the page and am having a hard time taking you seriously. So you've added some ad hominems from Horowitz's McCarthyesque "The Professors". If hooks said we are living in tyranny, why not quote her directly rather than Horowitz? And again, why not actually engage her ideas in this section rather than trying to turn the article into a hatchet job based on quotes that obsessively center on a speech she gave in 2002? This section is longer than the entire section on her career. If hooks fantasizes about killing white men, why not quote her directly on it, instead of saying we must take Accuracy in Academia's word for it? And in what way is this "criticism" anyway? Or even relevant? How about some context or discussion? Assuming she has written about killing white men in this book, why should the wikipedia reader care? Because AIA appears outraged? Stephen King and Ernest Hemingway have written books in which killing white men is fantasized; shall we take note of this on their pages? Obviously there is something more to this criticism, why not spell it out? Or, how about instead you actually read hooks, or read someone who engages hooks' ideas directly rather than an absurd strawman caricature of them? While you are doing some reading assignments, take a look at WP:BLP and contemplate why it is that you would prefer to see a hit piece devoid of actual content here rather than a useful biography of hooks. Have a nice day.--csloat 08:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I quote others' criticism of Hooks' writings because Wikipedia has a policy against original research, an example of which would be an editor simply criticizing or labeling a quote from Hooks as "controversial" without presenting any evidence (beyond prima facie) it is such. 2) As to why I haven't quoted Hooks' books directly, I haven't read them.  Apparently neither have you.  Here's your reading assignment:  "A Killing Rage", where she, not a character, fantasizes about killing a white man.  To the best of my knowledge, neither King nor Hemingway ever wrote that they fantasized about killing white men as she has; but I would think if they had, it would be notable.   3) First you claim the speech is almost non-notable but somehow find a way to insert two paragraph length descriptions of it.  Now you claim the section is too long.  If you've made up your mind, I'm quite happy to see both the critical and sympathetic remarks summarized so as to reduce the entire section's length, as long as the result is balanced .  4) I'm quite familiar with WP:BLP and don't wish Hooks' article to be a "hit piece".  Neither do I want to see legitimately sourced criticism white-washed through a knee-jerk "it's from Horowitz so it can't be true" reaction. Lawyer2b 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk about contradicting yourself; have you read hooks or not? If you have read A Killing Rage, quote it, rather than the summary of someone who is obviously out to attack her.  And why is it a criticism?  Again, indicate why citing her novel is a criticism.  I agree with not using original research, but using only quotes from hatchet jobs is a clear violation of WP:BLP.  I never said it's from Horowitz so it can't be true.  I said it doesn't belong here.  As for the commencement speech, I added quotes because I didn't want to be accused of censoring it; if we can reach consensus on deleting it that is definitely my preference.  It is not notable enough here.  A simple statement that she gave this speech is fine, but if you are going to turn it into a "criticism" of her, then I will insist that the criticism be put in context.  Once again, I would prefer to see actual criticism here than silly attacks from people who are not even familiar with her work.  Do you understand yet?--csloat 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Gee, I don't feel tardy like a I contradicted myself. How did I exactly?  2)  You seem to be obsessed with getting me to quote Hooks' book directly.  I'm sorry, it's too much effort when citations from secondary sources will suffice and are more easily available.  If you want to add citations from her primary source, be my guest. 3) When you ask, "why is it a criticism," what exactly is "it"?  Point out a sentence in the material I've added to the article you don't feel is criticism and I'll be happy to address it. 4) While you're at it, please cite specifically what part of WP:BLP you're saying is clearly violated and I'll address that too.  5) Your comments come across as incredibly protective of Hooks’ reputation.  Because I added material critical of the speech she gave I "turned it into" a criticism of her.  Look the bottom line is, properly sourced criticism and controversy over a figure's books, speeches, and ideas, do not violate WP:BLP and deserve to be included in their article.  I'm sorry if you don't like that. 6) You seem to think that the sources I cited as critical of Hooks are not familiar with her work.  Do you have any evidence to back that up?  Lawyer2b 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Anybody who accuses you of censoring because you paraphrased a long quote is incorrect.  In is entirely appropriate to do so.
 * 1)First you said you didn't read her books, then you told me what you claim to have read in the book. (2) There is nothing wrong with a secondary source summarizing the person, but your secondary source is vilifying her. Summaries should be from neutral third parties, not from her attackers.  Of course, the subject's words are preferable when possible.  If "it's too much effort" to read her books, why the hell do you insist on editing her biography at all?  Go edit something you actually know something about.  (3) The sentences I was talking about are in the section "A Killing Rage."  Besides the fact that your last sentence is barely intelligible, it hardly constitutes a criticism of her work.  (4) This is the section of WP:BLP that this article now violates, thanks to you.  This "criticism" is a fringe view from non-scholarly critics with an overt political agenda of maliciously attacking the subject.  (5) If you think I am trying to protect hooks, you aren't reading my comments.  I am trying to protect Wikipedia's reputation, not hooks'.  Article sections like this cannot and should not be taken seriously by anyone trying to learn about hooks.  I've said it four or five times now, but let me emphasize since you have trouble understanding: I want criticism in the article.  In fact, I want more criticism.  But I want valid criticism of her ideas, not blatant and non-substantive smears.  A sentence or two that says she gave a controversial lecture once 4 years ago is all that is necessary in that section.  (6) Yes, the evidence is that the authors you cite -- 2 or 3 fringe far-right-wing figures around David Horowitz -- do not take any of her ideas seriously in their articles.  They seem to have scanned the index of her books for quotes they can take out of context in order to write a smear piece.  Horowitz and Glazov, of course, are well known for that kind of stuff, which is why they have no business being quoted here at all.  Every word they write has a political purpose, usually to undermine the credibility of someone they perceive as an academic leftist.  I see no evidence in their articles of any familiarity with hooks' work beyond that.--csloat 00:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 0) Thanks for the numbered response. I’m bulleting this, so if you like, you can insert a  response after each point.
 * 1) I haven’t read her books. The only thing I read was her essay “A Killing Rage” and only because that nice professor had it on his webpage.  The essay was part of a collection of 23 essays Hooks released as “killing rage: Ending Racism”.
 * And yet you choose to quote horowitz rather than the text you claim to have read? I haven't read that particular essay; killing white guys isn't really my thing, but if you want to quote it, and you have read it, why quote a known hack from a smear piece instead?-csloat 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I can appreciate your preference for primary source citations over secondary ones but I’m not going to do it; its not required per policy and I don’t share your preference enough to make it worth my time and effort. If you think it’s so important that any quote from Hooks’ books be cited not from someone else but from the book itself, you go ahead and change the reference. Lawyer2b 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to, since my position is that the quote is not notable at all in this section. If you think such a quote is notable, look it up; if you can't be bothered to do so, you have no business insisting on it being in an encyclopedia.  The problem is not just that it is a secondary source but that it is from a source with a clear agenda of attacking hooks.-csloat 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And when the csloat "If You Can't Be Bothered Policy" that mandates all quotes must come from primary sources replaces official wikipedia policy I will make sure to follow it. Lawyer2b 12:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 2) Putting a summary of her work by Horowitz in the main body of her article with no warning that it was from a critical perspective would be a “weasely” thing to do; and one which I never would even try. However, this section is about (hello?) “controversy and criticism” – an appropriate place to put remarks from those who disagree with her ideas, output, etc. Of course, criticism can be balanced by a positive perspective (perhaps even from Hooks herself?) and has every right to be there.
 * No; putting a criticism of her here makes sense, but not a smear. When you are quoting from the book do it directly, if you have access to that information.-csloat 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, we get it. Horowitz et. al. are hacks, he's a kind of cartoon , his magazine a rag , and his work consists of McCarthyesque smears . So you don't like him and would prefer his criticism not be included in the article.  Unfortunately I don't share your view.   See above for response to request to quote from book directly. Lawyer2b 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm, the problem is that this is not just my view; it is verifiable. Horowitz has a verifiable agenda of attacking hooks and he does not provide arguments; simply attacks. Again, a criticism that makes some sense might be useful, but name-calling is not.--csloat 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whew! That's a relief.  For a minute I thought you might have been letting your personal views of Horowitz get in the way of objectively editing this article.  Seriously, since this isn't your view and it's all verifiable, why don't you just trot on over to the David Horowitz (conservative writer) article and add those descriptors (hack, cartoon, rag, etc.), with your verifable sources of course. Lawyer2b 12:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"":It is criticism but it is not notable criticism. It is just ad hominem BS, which WP:BLP cautions against, with good reason. We should put rational criticism here, not this junk. Pick up Encyclopedia Britannica and look at any biography piece and look for such smear quotes in there; you won't find them, even under articles for people like Saddam Hussein. This has nothing to do with what I "like."--csloat 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Really? So someone calling Hooks, “one of the most anti-male and anti-American feminists of our time” and describing her desire as “hateful” is not criticism?  You and I must have different definitions of criticism because, where I come from, that’s it ! LOL  Unfortunately, something tells me that if I said, “well, since you don’t think its criticism, you won’t mind if we just move that out of that section and into the main body of her article”, you’d object.  ;-)  I admit I had a hard time making the last sentence “work”.  I’ll revisit that and see what I can do.
 * I’m willing to see "one of the most anti-male and anti-American feminists of our time” removed, if that’s what you’re referring to as “ad hominem” and we can also redact where the author of the letter to the editor labels her a bigot but I think there we can do other things that will make the article better. I think if we summarize and briefly mention both the criticisms and different points of view (i.e. no long direct quotes but links to the sources) of her controversial speech and essay, the section can be both balanced and not exceptionally long.  Who knows, we may get it down to such a reasonable length so as to make an entirely separate section devoted to “criticism and controversies” not warranted at this point.  Would you like me to have a go at that? Lawyer2b 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are definitely examples of ad hominems. If you want to quote someone saying she is racist, quote a reason justifying the claim.  I don't see a problem with mentioning that she once gave a speech that some people didn't like (except, of course, the notability issue, but I can stipulate that you will establish at least marginal notability with reference to articles that cite the incident).--csloat 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused how you are confused. At least one of the reasons Accuracy in Academia called her a racist is because of what she wrote in her essay, "A Killing Rage".  This is included as part of the quote from Accuracy in Academia.  Go look at the Ann Coulter article.  It mentions she was called a "hatemonger".  Why?  It mentions it as part of her controversial remarks over the "Jersey Girls".  Both of these are appropriate inclusions. Lawyer2b 12:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 4) I disagree the article is in violation of the Critics section of WP:BLP
 * The information is from reliable third-party published sources, to wit, Frontpage and Accuracy in Academia. These aren’t made up entities.
 * The information is clearly related to the person's notability, to wit, her writings/speeches and views. The information is not, for example, about her appearance or lifestyle; both of which may be open to criticism but are not what she is noted for.
 * The information is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. The information is limited to the criticism section and simply presents what her critics said about her.


 * Read it again. "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." (csloat)
 * Well, the first clause you quote says you can insist on those things, and you rightly have, and I have rightly delivered them. I didn’t make this point of view of her work up and the view is relevant to her notability (see above).  You need to explain why you think this part is still being violated.  Lawyer2b 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, your user page basically says you hate liberals. It's obvious this is an agenda for you on this page, which is why it is even more important to get other perspectives here.  Surely you must be capable of seeing what is one-sided about the "General Views" section, or what is irresponsible and slanderous about stating - as if it were a fact, in clear violation of WP:BLP - "This is a distinguished professor with a six-figure salary, loaded with academic honors, who is given license to conduct a one-sided Marxist-feminist indoctrination of hapless students"?-csloat 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reading my user page. My only "agenda", however, is adding a fair criticism and controversy section to this her article.  I agree that at this moment the "General Views" section is one-sided, but falsely accusing me of an agenda in an effort to see legitimate third party sourced material removed is not helpful to writing the article, don't you think?  Instead, why don't you add material from another perspective?  I'm not stopping you and I enourage it because it will improve the article.  Lawyer2b 13:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."--csloat 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This argument of yours is about the only one I can’t refute easily. I don’t know how either of us can prove whether the criticism, per WP:NPOV:undue weight, is a “tiny minority”, “a significant minority”, or a “majority”.  What I will say is that Media Matters is a very partisan organization/website and is cited as a source of criticism in many Wikipedia articles.  Why shouldn’t Frontpage, admittedly just as partisan, be viewed the same? Lawyer2b 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we have a different notion of "refute" - to me it means more than repeating your original position and ignoring the arguments against it. I agree Media Matters is also partisan, but the difference is they are not one-dimensionally focused on character assassination the way Frontpage is on issues like this.  They go after particular stories, and they reference the mainstream sources that refute those stories.  Frontpage, on the other hand, goes after particular individuals.  More troubling is that they deliberately pull quotes out of context in order to support their character assassination pieces.  That is the biggest problem with you quoting them quoting others.  I'd prefer neither source be used and Wikipedia instead cite the mainstream sources referenced in the articles from both sources.  But I am not saying there should be a blanket rule against frontpage either, so don't misunderstand me.  What I am saying is that in this case, the view that the most important thing to critique about hooks is the fact that she once gave a lousy speech 4 years ago is a fringe view.--csloat 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ignored your arguments and if I've restated my position it was only because it didn't sound like you understood it or responded to it. Take a look at Media Matters' page on media personalities and tell me they don't "go after" individuals.  Who is saying "the most important thing to critique about hooks is a speech she gave"?  I agree with you when you say the criticism section should be expanded and it should contain more criticism that specifically addresses her ideas.  Lawyer2b 13:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 5) I disagree that someone wanting to learn about Hooks shouldn’t take that section seriously.  The information is pertinent, notable and verifiable.  I am in total agreement there should be more criticism about her ideas.  I totally disagree that the mention of the speech should be limited to what you describe.  Go look at the  Al Franken controversies section I think it’s a great example of a well-done controversy section.  It has stood the test of time with people of differing perspectives hovering over it and it’s got a lot of information.  Should each of those sub-sections have been summarized in a sentence or two?
 * Disagree all you want. The information is not pertinent or notable.  The only thing "verifiable" is that these hacks actually published these comments.  If the head of the Marxist Leninist Organization calls Bush a "fascist" should we put it in his biography under "criticism"?  Or, better yet, if he calls Allan Bloom a "racist" (to make the analogy more pertinent)?--csloat 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your Bush analogy is apples to oranges but I like the Bloom one. In answer, while I wouldn't like it, I wouldn't object to a criticism section in Bloom's article with that a comment like that in there if it was verifiable and followed wikipolicy, as is the case here. Lawyer2b 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think such a section was a problem, especially when there are far more interesting things to critique in Bloom's work. Do you own a real encyclopedia, such as Britannica?  Pick it up, look up a well known intellectual (say, Hegel, or Marx) and see if you can find such ridiculous quotations thrown in.  Certainly plenty of such things have been said about Marx throughout history.  Yet the wise editors of Britannica have likely chosen not to include such nonsense in the article.--csloat 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen, there are a lot of things that are put in wikipedia you wouldn't find in an Encylopedia Britannica - some I think good, some I think bad. But my understanding is also that wikipedia is not trying to be an "online Encyclopedia Britannica" so while I understand your point, its not exactly applicable here.  I try to make wikipedia a better place and follow its policies in doing so.  Lawyer2b 13:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 6) First, to you Horowitz is “fringe far-right”; but not according to many people and, ironically, not according to his entry in Wikipedia. Secondly, since many of the words they write are verbatim from the academic, I think much of the destruction of credibility is self-inflicted.  As I have mentioned, and as you have so capably done, the criticism can be balanced with alternate opinions.  Lawyer2b 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Horowitz is pretty far right, and he is kind of a cartoon. He is a sensationalist; an academic version of Ann Coulter (only slightly less extreme).  The point is not whether words are "verbatim" but that they are taken out of context with one goal in mind - slander.  There is why such sources are not encyclopedic.--csloat 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, your opinion is that Horowitz's goal is slander. I disagree.  When people can't reach consensus, I think they should just follow policy. Lawyer2b 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not just my opinion; it is verifiable. Look at the article!  If you can't figure out from reading it, apart from what you may already know about Horowitz, then you might look at taking some classes to boost your reading comprehension skills.  You will need them in law school.--csloat 23:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To butcher a quote from The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word 'verifiable'. I do not think it means what you think it means." Lawyer2b 13:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)