Talk:Bell hooks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

scare quotes

Why are all references to her education in "scare quotes"? She "graduated"? She has a "PhD"? "Dr." Hooks? What the heck is this? Are her academic credentials disputed? -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

THey appear to be a hostile introduction by User:71.28.207.253. I have reverted the changes. —Theo (Talk) 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

New, and large, revisions

Hey everyone. I am in the process of revising this article. My main goals are:

• Remove bias.
• Clean up existing sections.
• Add new sections to cover her theory.

I hope others can help out.

69.226.209.145 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome. Hyacinth 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

This section alone is too long for the talk page.

Its former content is now at Talk:Bell hooks/Criticism section.

• Renamed to Talk:Bell hooks/Archive04 with the rest of the archives. --lquilter 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

commencement speech

I have adjusted this section according to the comments above. Again, I don't think we need such a section at all, since I don't think the speech is all that notable, but if we are going to post it here, we should post various views on it. The claim of frontpage that she was attacking her audience is false, according to the Austin Chronicle, and her comments should be set in the proper context, as the quotes I added attempt to do. I renamed the section since none of this really criticizes her ideas; it just suggests that she made a speech that was not well-received. I think a separate criticism section that actually addresses her ideas would be nice here.--csloat 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are on as shaky ground as insisting Frontpage that rag is patently unreliable when you confidently assert the Chronicle article clearly contradicts Frontpage's description of Hooks' behavior. The Chronicle article's ameliorating description stops short of saying Hooks didn’t attacked the audience at all; it just says she didn't call them something derogatory. But rather than making the focus be whether hooks did or did not attack the audience, which I think is missing the point, let us focus on why the speech was controversial. Among the things that are notable is that the audience felt attacked, which even the Chronicle article supports, as evidenced by the audience member's letter to the newspaper and the article's direct quote from a professor who actually offers an explanation as to why the audience felt that way. Lawyer2b 05:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The description from the Chronicle contextualizes hooks' comments as something other than blatant attacks on the audience (feel free to read the description yourself). Again, I don't think any of this is notable at all, but if we are going to note it, Frontpage's incredibly one-dimensional "summary" of the speech should not be the sole representation of it. Let's get real - I want to see actual criticism of hooks' ideas here, not the non-notable information that an audience once booed her at a speech. Get it?--csloat 08:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As previously noted, I disagree with the idea that the speech's controversy isn't notable but I'm in complete agreement that Frontpage's comments should not be the only representation of it. I think you "went overboard" with the amount of sympathetic reviews but recognize your intent to balance. Lawyer2b 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What amound of sympathetic reviews are you talking about? The only thing I put in there that could be perceived as sympathetic is the quote from the Reverend. I don't see any evidence that this speech is notable other than sputtering smears from fring sources. A sentence or two is more than is necessary, but if you insist on presenting quotes from the likes of Glazov, we're going to need to contextualize it with comments from others.-csloat 00:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Potentially valuable material that needs verification

All information in WP articles must be verifiable (and, BTW, as the "living" version of {{WPBiography}} at the top of this talk page states, this is especially urgent, even on the talk page, in cases of negative assertions about living and thus libelable people). At this point i'm using this section (but you can't assume others who use it will do the same) for two situations:

1. statements that have been contradicted (including replacement with something that is consistent, even tho each asserts something the other doesn't)
2. statements whose verifiablity is unlikely, because what is asserted either is rarely documented when true, or is so ambiguous that the content of any verification will probably support a more valuable assertion.

In cases of either situation, work is needed. IMO, the level of attention given, in the article's editing, to getting attention for editors' PoVs on her (or to making naming-magic more powerful) implies that if good information is temporarily obscured, that will be compensated by speeding net improvement of the article.

Intent of her pen name

_ _ I've removed all reference to who she named herself after and why she downcases it, since all of this came into the article in multiple different accounts and without reason, let alone verifiable reason, being given. IMO such info will improve the article, when we have something verifiable to put in.
_ _ User:AntonioMartin's original wording which reads

She uses the name bell hooks to honor her mother and her grandmother.

(lightly modified at least by me) was removed and ultimately the topic came to be covered by

The name is that of her maternal grandmother; hooks writes that it is spelled in lower-case letters to emphasize that the content of her work is more important than her name.

In fact, as i was surprised to stumble onto, at least one other revision (which i've lost track of) says Bell Hooks was her

great-grandmother

It's possible that one (or all) of these is someone's misremembering of something verifiable, or (since they are not clearly inconsistent) that all of them have a verifiable basis, in which case what we need to state is the various versions she has asserted, since we are unlikely to find definitive facts beyond the fact that she said one or more things.
_ _ (In case someone is diligent enough to trace thru the full history of the article's treatment of the intent of her pen name, my edit changing from stating her purpose to stating her account of it is based on no reference: it should be obvious that knowing intent is never possible for anyone but the intender, so that a statement about another's intent is either a sloppy account about what the other said, or an unverifiable opinion. Either she said it, or Antonio has made a fool of me; i have no better source, and it would be appropriate for someone concerned about covering this aspect to seek one, since Antonio probably didn't just make it up.)
--Jerzy•t 21:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The phrase

in order to put the emphasis on her writing rather than her name.

was added (by a two-edit, no-user-page registered user) without summary or talk-page comment; that editor did not remove

to honor her mother and her grandmother.

--Jerzy•t 12:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
To make a redundant statement about the patriarchal tyranny of capital letters, or whatever the hell she's ranting against these days. You know what, not capitalising her name actually draws more attention to it, not less. Whatever, bitch. Patriarch 11:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology for uninformed edit

I changed the H to h in Dr hooks' name in three places in this article without reading the Talk: page. These were:
Line 13:
Career
H/hooks began her teaching...
Line 19:
...a notable leftist political thinker and cultural critic. H/hooks tries to reach a broad...
Line 30:
Influences
H/hooks' work is influenced by a variety of people...
I aplogise for this, and have changed them back.Shirt58 10:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"... uniformed edit"? Crikey, it must be because I'm still wearing my Field hockey uninform sic from the game v Valleys this afternoon. 1-all draw, btw. Shirt58 10:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for editing, in or out of uniform, instead of waiting around forever until you were sure you were entirely informed, and maybe forgetting about the whole thing. Incompletely informed editing is WP's lifeblood, and even completely uninformed editing is something is something where we've gotten good at rolling with the punches. I hope you keep on editing, and if your teammate (or opponent, i wasn't clear about that) Mr. Crike would like to come and edit as well, please bring him along, informed, uniformed, whatever.
--Jerzy•t 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I now know there is this thing called "reverting". Thanks for your help, humour and tolerance, Jerzy. Shirt58 11:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of U of Miami lk

_ _ This appears to have a good biblio (IMO not copyright protected). It also has 4 lks outside the U, all garbage and one (re tape) to irrelevant ads, in large part paid ones and probably all paid, including "Non-profit Oyster" which invites the inference that it is a non-profit, but does not say it in terms that could straightforwardly be prosecuted for fraud if false.
_ _ Perhaps a persistent editor can get the U of Miami page fixed, or use its info other than lks to create something better here.
--Jerzy•t 08:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Does someone want to start a section on her works? I'd suggest between the current sections two and three.--Anthony Krupp 07:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)