Talk:Bell hooks

video section

Anyone know what this section is actually referencing? I.e., have the title of the film available? If not, seems like it should be ditched. 68.80.213.219 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove it. It is unreferenced, and really reads like the liner notes to the video. Of course this whole article reads like it was taken from the bio section of the program at some lecture or seminar. Andyparkerson 11:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

error in the career dates

article says she began teaching in 76 as a senior lecturer, then that she published a book in 81 as an undergraduate. If the book was written in the early 70s and not published till 81 we should make that clear otherwise this is very confusing...jackbrown

"Protecting the page"

Has anyone noticed that the bell hooks page has been vandalized? Someone has put, bell hooks is a dumb nigger. Is slander and hate speech permissible at Wikipedia? Please protect the page from racist vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.233.178 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been protecting it by reverting it as soon as we catch it. You can do that, too. WP:VANDAL explains more about the process of catching, reverting, preventing vandalism. --lquilter 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

archives

I've archived all the old material. Because there was so much extensive discussion on (a) case/capitalization and (b) the criticism brouhaha, I set up special archives for those, following the precedent already established for the criticism section discussion (which I renamed for consistent naming). See the tidy archives box with descriptions. --lquilter 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pen name

What does the pen name section have to do with her pen name? 134.173.95.106 10:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)134.173.95.106

Capitalization

Forgive my ignorance, but is bell hooks' name necessarily lowercase at the beginning of a sentence, where, one would think, even words that generally lack capitalization are capitalized? If the convention is to write her name as lowercase in all situations, and in all contexts, then by all means, the article should stay as it is. But if there is no such convention, then I think sentences beginning "hooks is" should probably be changed to "Hooks is." Hlemonick 12:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that her name should definitely be capitalized at the beginning of sentences and paragraphs, just like any other word. It probably should be capitalized throughout to comply with standard English capitalization conventions. PubliusFL 23:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, that is a really good question. I know that she doesn't capitalize her name in general, but I don't know if the intention is to never capitalize, or to treat the name like any other word. Natalie 23:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To treat her name as some kind of "superword" exempt from all rules of capitalization would seem to contradict her stated goal of focusing on "substance of books, not who I am." On the other hand, insisting on special treatment of her name at all has the result of focusing an unusual degree of attention on her rather than the substance of her books, so maybe she hasn't thought this thing through completely. PubliusFL 00:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with both of you, her name is meant to be lowercase, all her books she signs bell hooks in a lowercase fashion. I think we need to respect the thinker's intention and not look to conform to the rules of English grammar. To say that she has not thought this out, is not for you or I too say. By trying to capitalize it, is to take away from her, her desire to stand out. I mean Madonna doesn't use a last name for artistic purpose, so the same arguement is applied in this case ForrestLane42 02:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

I think you misunderstand the question. I, for one, am not arguing that her name should be capitalized in general. However, we are questioning if either of her names should be capitalized when they are the first word in a sentence, like words generally are. Natalie 03:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Natalie is right about this particular question. For what it's worth, I am inclined to think that her name should always be capitalized. The spirit of the Wikipedia Manual of Style says we should respect the rules of English above the thinker's intention. Look at how WP:MOSTM explicitly rejects the "thinker's intention" when it comes to Thirtysomething (not thirtysomething) and Realtor (not REALTOR). PubliusFL 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think I am misunderstanding the question. As for WP:MOSTM, it is used in reference to trademarks, her name I can't see as a trademark, it is the author's linguistic intention to lowercase her name. When you do read WP:MOSTM, it seems to me to be splitting hairs in painful way. Just my opinion, I just find it that the issue of capitalization plagues her site over and over again. The question as far as I can see was resolved, if one would take the time to read the ensuing discussion in the archives... why rehash old issues?ForrestLane42 10:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

As far as I have seen, no one has mentioned MOSTM. It does seem like the rough consensus in the archives, though, was that bell hooks' name should be treated like a normal word and capitalized at the beginning of sentences. PubliusFL 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style demands that bell hooks be lower case, except at the beginning of a sentence. As reason, the manual states that the author was personally quite insistent on the matter. The Oxford University recommendation is the same. On the other hand, many other lesser style guides require that the name be treated as a proper name with ordinary capitalization. WP:CL stands astride these two alternatives: the name is to be lower case in the lede and article title, but capitalized elsewhere. This is stated quite unambiguously in the style guide, so the case is closed (in my opinion, at least). Silly rabbit 00:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops - I just changed all instances of her name in the article to read lowercase before reading the talk page. Will revert ASAP. For the record, I'd agree with the people who assert that bell hooks's work implies that she'd want her name to be treated as a standard lower-case word (i.e. capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, lowercase elsewhere including the article heading and lead.) Apologies. On another note, the book in front of me (Key Thinkers on Space and Place) uses hooks's name only in lower case regardless of the context. The book is a formal, academic text, so if they can do it, why not Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.234.87 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia could, but Wikipedia has its own editorial guidelines which say to follow standard English usage rather than applying the preferences of individuals. PubliusFL (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is the same issue that's driving me nuts over on the k.d. lang page. I still think that the Wiki entry should reflect the artists' "stage names" and and should not "correct" them. There is a Wiki page for the band !!!; someone decided they should be called !!! and Wiki complies. When someone decides they should be consistently lowercase, Wiki freaks out. It doesn't make sense. A few moderators have made the case that lowercase brings improper attention to these artists, but I think !!! is fairly attention-grabbing. If a writer made a brand for herself with the name !!!bellhooks!!! (one word) that would be permissable by Wiki standards, am I right? Steverino (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's abundantly clear just how we would handle such a stage name. We'd probably have to discuss it, and come up with a rule, because it's a situation we haven't quite seen before. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so (that "!!!bellhooks!!!" would be permissible). Such a stage name is basically a trademark or service mark (as is k.d. lang), and WP:MOSTM says: "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g. ♥ used for 'love'). In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used." PubliusFL (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My two cents... There is absolutely no disadvantage to writing hooks' name as she intends it, aside from the fact that it might infringe on a rather arbitrary allegiance to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. However, there IS a disadvantage in writing her name in a way she explicitly does not intend. Who are we to say that hooks should be Hooks, or Ann Anne, or MacLeod McLeod? Hurtsmyears (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a guideline that mandates arbitrary changes in spelling? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 08:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? Bell hooks' name should be in all lower-case unless it's at the beginning of a sentence (as in this very sentence). That's the way she intends it to be written and that's the way it should be written. Chicago Manual of Style says so. Every literature professor in the world says so. I fail to see how it draws any kind of improper attention given that every other respectable source on the planet will spell her name in lower case, per her convention. Spelling it with capital letters amounts to misspelling it. People who come here to learn about her should learn that she spells her name all in lower-case. I honestly can't think of a single good reason why we should capitalise her name. At minimum, it should be in all lower-case as the default while people talk here about possibly changing it to upper-case, as opposed to the reverse. In fact, I'd like to come back here in a couple of days and do that if nobody objects. Not to kill the conversation, just to change the way the page looks now. my_rain_face ^(talk) 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realised that this conversation started with discussion about whether it should be capitalised at the beginning of sentences, not at the rest of occasions. That, I think, merits reasonable discussion, but at other times -- as in when her name is used in the middle of sentences -- it should be lower case. Surely everyone can agree that at least while this conversation continues, her name when written in mid-sentence ought *not* to be capitalised, since that's the conventional way it's written? (sorry for unsigned, having password issues and need to reset it. My username, as above, is my_rain_face) 70.239.94.25 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a way of compromising here. Instead of capitalizing bell hooks at the start of sentences (which is incorrect, and even though WP policy mandates it the CMS and her self-definition make that mandate unworkable) either find a sentence structure that does not use her name as the first word or use "Watkins" at the start of sentences--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative lede sentences

We need to stop the pointless edit war here. So I'm going to suggest an alternative lede.

Gloria Jean Watkins (born September 25, 1952) is better known by the pseudonym bell hooks (which is deliberately not capitalized). She is an African-American author, feminist, and social activist.

This lede a) is within the MOS and b) uses the subject's preferred spelling of her pseudonym. Any views?--Cailil ^talk 12:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The current lead paragraph already satisfies the Manual of Style's call for noting preferred typeset of an article's subject and in a very descriptive, matter-of-fact fashion. What makes you think that your proposed wording of the lead would not just be continuously removed as well (along with every other "wrongfully" capitalized instance of the name)? – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 13:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do see you point Cyrus but the first thing that troubles me about the current lede is that it puts the pseudonym first. Usually real names are put first when dealing with authors who use pseudonyms (see Mark Twain as an example). Secondly I see compromise in this situation as the best way forward. You are right that "Hooks" should be capitalized as the first word in sentences and others are correct that her self-definition should leave "hooks" uncapitalized. There is a way to satisfy both without damaging the article. I made a post yesterday explaining such a compromise[1]--Cailil ^talk 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You got me wrong there, the name should be capitalized throughout the article, except for single instances in the lead paragraph and the passage that explains how the pen name came about. No objections to putting the birth name first and add a reference to the lead paragraph instance of her personal style though. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that much is a step forward. I've gone ahead and added the new lede lines. We can reword as appropriate/necessary.

On the wider issue my over all point is that we can write this article without the contention of the capitalized/not-capitalized issue. Starting so many sentences with a name (and I'm aware that this is a biography) is lazy writing - in other words the page needs copy-editing and clean-up. Within that process we could also try to resolve or remove the "hooks" / "Hooks" issue, partially by using "Watkins" and at other times using appropriate pronouns. This will reduce the instance of Hooks says and Hooks did. Hopefully this will help make the page more stable.

BTW I do take your point about the MOS Cyrus, but the 'self-definition' clauses gives me pause in this case. Hence my suggestion to remove, resolve or at least reduce the issue--Cailil ^talk 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very very preview of my above suggested copy-edit of the page. This reduces the number of "Hooks" references to two - which need to be capitalized and to quotes in which her name is capitalized. What do you think?--Cailil ^talk 12:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I think we need to put the criticisms in perspective Horowitz and Glazov have dubious reputations, highly controversial and are far from respectable sources of criticism of hooks, I am sure that someone can find criticism of hooks that is not tied to an right-wing agenda. ForrestLane42 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Following WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, we ourselves can't put their criticism into perspective. If other people have offered counter criticisms or hooks herself has responded to their criticisms, then those would be great. Sourced, of course.

Also, please put new comments at the bottom of the talk page. I have moved this one for you. Natalie 03:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

they make good points about her, and their opinions aren't to be discounted just because they have an agenda you don't agree with. if hitler had found the cure for aids, and you had aids, would you not take the cure because hitler invented it? 76.25.115.99 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

what?!? Hitler? Your comment is absurd, and irrelevant. 67.78.235.101 (talk)

Image cleanup

The current headshot has severe compression artifacts. -- Beland 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put the image cleanup tag on the image itself so it might get a response. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seating issues

So poster #1 (IP 132.235.205.166 ) added, Hooks and her traveling companion had simply been involved in an honest mistake made by the airline. In addition, Hooks and her friend had not actually paid for their seats in first class...

Poster #2 (IP 74.185.0.47) removed the entry, saying that "Poster cannot account for the experiences of bell hooks", which may be true, as Poster #1 did not cite any references.

Does anyone know?--Knulclunk 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

hooks states that her friend did NOT have the correct boarding pass. the man she wanted to kill did. hooks claimed they were being discriminated against because her friend, who was in a seat not assigned to her (as far as the flight attendant was concerned), was asked to move for the man who DID have the correct boarding pass. on an airplane, you sit where you are assigned. she admits to her friend not being assigned to that seat. plus, airlines care more about people who actually pay for first class than those who upgrade using miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.115.99 (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems more like hooks and her friend paid for first-class tickets, but the airline made an error and issued hook's friend a coach ticket. Indeed, the article says hooks did possess a first-class ticket, and they both uprated at the same time. Seems hook's friend should have at least had an apology from the airline and a refund of any money or miles used to upgrade. In any case, is this "drama" really worth raking someone over the coals for? I agree it should be in the text as "controversy" for it raises questions to her character and was written about by an eminent individual, but it seems liek it's hogging an inordinate amount of space. Surely she must have attracted OTHER criticism; criticism that is related to her ideology. No tats with second-wave feminists? No OTHER critiques by right-wing ideologues? --128.119.16.147 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

hooks's thoughts

The following section was removed with the note we could not get inside hooks's head. I disagree. As a thinker, essayist and writer, what she publishes is inside her head. The problem is that this section was unsourced, either to her or an mainstream source about her. I think if we can source this section, we can keep it.

Hooks believes that in order for the feminist perspective to make a difference in the world, feminists must return to their original positive grassroots efforts. She believes that most feminist thinkers and theorists today do their work in an University elite setting ; consequently, their work is written in highly academic language not readily understood by those who have not completed post-secondary education. She believes this type of language is evident in the works she herself produced during the first half of her career; furthermore, she endeavors to return feminism to its roots by striving to write her works in accessible language to all.

--Knulclunk 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What she publishes is not in her head. It is on paper. We can write about that. We can say that her writing touches on certain subjects, or that she advocates certain perspectives, as evidenced in her works. We cannot write about what she thinks or believes, because we cannot observe that. Andyparkerson 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to that.--Knulclunk 02:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You can find citations for hooks' above noted views in several of her works, e.g. Feminism is for Everybody. I don't have a page citation with me or I would provide it. From a wiki reader (I am not generally involved in editing and don't know how you typically sign these things).

npov

this article is full of non-npov statements and bias against anyone who disagrees with bell hooks. its full of "Weasel words" (for example the criticism section before i removed it, if you take a look it just plainly states that the man she wanted to kill had recieved preferential treatment, which is just one example of non-npov) someone who isn't a bigot probably should fix this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.115.99 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

photo

Don't misplace the old picture, because this one will surly be tagged NFC before long. --Knulclunk 14:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)