Talk:Houston A. Baker Jr.

More info on his scholarship wanted

Can we please get some more information on Baker? 90 percent of this article focuses on his response to one (relatively minor) event in 2006. He was a noted literary scholar for thirty years before that happened, and he's an important thinker in African American Studies.

I can't add to it myself because I don't know enough about his work, but surely someone can. Michial 22:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No more info on him as needed, as the guy has no notability except for his very vocal involvement in the Duke lacrosse case. Edrigu 14:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is amazingly inaccurate. Professor Baker is one of the most notable litterary scholars in the United States. His comments during the aftermath of the Duke case were inexcusable, but his scholarship is beyond question. Catesby42 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For an intelligent assessment of his literary merit, see the Terry Teachout article listed in the references. --Anthon.Eff 01:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Αργυριου (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section to trace his contributions to literary scholarship. I (we?) need to find some reviews or comments about the impact/importance of these books; what I've provided is mostly summary. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly contributions

To User: Stevietheman: achieving NPOV is not achieved by erasing sourced text that tells a part of the story that you think is overemphasized. It is achieved by entering sourced text that tells a part of the story that you think is neglected. I will reintroduce my sourced text--I was careful to use the exact words of Terry Teachout, an important mainstream critic (take a look at who publishes his stuff!) whose judgment is respected by most other mainstream critics, thus avoiding the problem of libeling a living person. If you think the article is one-sided then get to work!--find your own sources, write your own paragraph! And you might check the previous discussion regarding this article, at User_talk:Gamaliel#Houston_A._Baker_Jr., where you will find these two sentences:

"You are certainly welcome to insert contrary opinions, provided they are cited from reliable sources. But there clearly is a POV problem with the article if it does not include and reflect this information from mainstream reliable sources."

--Anthon.Eff 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I looked up Terry Teachout after reading this thread. "Important mainstream critic"! You must be joking. I follow US literary criticism reasonably closely and I had not heard of him. I spen a few hours looking up his articles and reading them, and he I did not find anything even vaguely important and if this kind of right wing pandering is mainstream, well, I suppose the right wing fanatics do control American media. But enough time spent on the trivial. 12.151.151.3 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm permanently objecting to this material, as it is obvious POV and empty trashing by one critic. Glorification of the flowery language of a cultural critic is useless material for an encyclopedia. You'll need to bring in Third Opinion, as I refuse to relent. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested a third opinion. In the meantime, since it is clear that you have strong feelings about this article, why don't you write something about HAB's scholarly contributions? Find someone reputable who said something nice about him--it's not hard, look at the blurbs on his books, lots of academics gush about his work. Once you get things going, I'll add my bit (and I promise not to react by erasing wholesale whatever you submit). --Anthon.Eff 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to criticism by Teachout, a notable fellow, being included, but this isn't the way to go about it. Dropping in a large, very negative blockquote attacking Baker's scholarly contributions, when the article makes no more than a token effort to describe those contributions, is inappropriate. While I share your dislike of drive-by taggers who do nothing but complain and delete, you simply can't drop in a chunk of negative text and expect other people to balance it out. Every edit we make should strive for neutrality. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I have to agree. Now, Stevie, it's up to you (and the anon from Durham, if he's lurking)-I look forward to seeing what you can do. Let me know if I can help! --Anthon.Eff 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Highly partisan and misleading article

I second opinion of those who have pointed out how biased this article is in its depiction of Baker. Baker is one of the most prominent scholars of American (including African American) literature and African American culture in the United States. The section titled "Scholarly contributions" basically states nothing besides claiming that Baker holds an extremely pessimistic view of social progress in the US. A similarly reductive statement would be to say that Stephen Jay Gould was a famous baseball fan. Baker's corpus of important publications reaches back into the early 1980s. The bibliography section lists only one of his numerous books. The overemphasis of Baker's involvement in last year's Duke Lacrosse incident as the primary event of Baker's career is blatantly inflammatory--the writer is purposely trying to sling mud without even a cursory attempt at making this look like a legitimate summary of Baker's relevance in academics and general intellectual life.

So write it yourself! What's wrong with you guys? Seems like no one writes articles anymore--they just run around slapping down POV tags, whining about what other people are doing. If you think "Baker's corpus of important publications" should be cataloged here, then do it! --Anthon.Eff 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the POV tag because it's simply unnecessary and the dispute is nonexistent. The only dispute is for the whole article and it concerns how we can tie in his apparent prominence in scholarship. So let them do their project, but there is no concern of POV in the Duke section, considering, well, what else would one add? Bias to point out bias is quite frustrating... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeasimperialism (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortened Duke section

I removed most of the quotes as the ideas that he expressed can be shortened quite a bit without resorting to quotes of passages. it probably can be shortened more but I think the real problem is the lack of content addressing his other contributions. Based on his wiki bio, it's not clear to me why his views on duke would be important but of course they are so his other accomplishments need more detail to support his notability. Does anyone have other biographical data that would support his notability? --DHeyward (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack

If we want to ensure this article is not a WP:Coatrack, it seems better to add other information about his work rather than remove relevant information about the Duke case, especially if the cite for the latter is a place as notable as the NYT. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

you are right. When the rest of the article is large enough, we can re-add this material. Until then this section cannot overwhelm the article and must remain at an appropriate length, as per WP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

But what if his notability primarily resides in his role in the Duke lacrosse case? To insist on accumulating material on a not particularly interesting academic seems inappropriate. Is there anyone out there who really sees merit in Baker's work? If you do, please add material.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is patently untrue, sorry. Numerous reference works attest to his primacy within his academic field. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

He is in an "academic field" that just isn't very important, unfortunately. Even if he is the top person in his field it doesn't mean much. That's why almost no one has bothered to introduce material describing his work--no one really cares about it. The Duke issue is his only real claim to notability.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If by people you mean tech and pop oriented Wikipedians, then yes, but he is important elsewhere. If the Duke issue was his only claim to fame, then this article should be immediately deleted under the rules of BLP. After all, an encyclopedia article on some guy who is only important for writing a letter? Seriously? Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've contributed to/started a bunch of articles about academics on WP, and there are many others like me here. If he had been important, one of us would have written about his work. He is not important enough to warrant more than what you and a few other people have already put in. To insist that yet more material needs to be put in, to keep the article balanced, isn't reasonable.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Insisting that he is not notable because Wikipedians have not written about him extensively is not a reasonable standard, especially when there are plenty of references in the article to rebut this claim. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Inflamatory

Because something is inflammatory does not make it non-notable. Moreover, you are not the final judge of what is important. It looks very much like censorship to disallow a quote that you don't like. If you want the rest of the article expanded, you do it. Assignments are not part of how things work here. DIY WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is it notable? Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask the NYT WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who selected that single quote from the entire article. Why is that specific quote necessary? Gamaliel (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My first edit is on 28 June. The quote was in the article on June 16. "Necessary" is a bad standard, and the quote is certainly "notable". WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote was entered April 15, 2007. IMO, it's not "inflammatory" to quote someone, especially when the source is as responsible and politically mainstream as the NYT. Baker knew, no doubt, that the comment would be made public, since it was not made to a friend, and this public statement provides insight into Baker's character, as the NYT obviously thought when it chose to publish it. Gamaliel, I agree whole-heartedly that the racists need to be kept away from this article, but you are overly cautious, to the point of censorship.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Differing opinions about how to interpret policy is not "censorship". Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have different opinions. My opinion is that you are in effect controlling the article, since you are the sole admin who has taken an interest, and the lack of progress in the article is due to your unwillingness to accept what appear to be consensus edits.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia itself isn't "necessary", and in another sense, no particular Wikipedia article is "necessary". WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, if you want to be pedantic. But what I meant was "why is it notable"? Gamaliel (talk)

It seems notable to everyone else. It is part of a small public record Baker has on the issue. Baker is rarely quoted in national news outlets, so any such quote is notable, especially since this article is quoting him not just as "some random expert who will give me a quote on the issue", but as someone who made a surprising and interesting statement. This quote was notable enough to make national news stories, why wouldn't it be notable enough for Wikipedia? WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This "specific quote" has been singled out by another source as well [1]

A little more resaearch and a little less WP:TE could have cleared this one up. CENSEI (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Outcomes

The way I see it there are three possible outcomes here:

1) The article is expanded to a reasonable length to discuss Baker's work and the reasons for his notability. Then the lacross section can be expanded. 2) The lacross section is kept reasonable short as not to overwhelm the article as per well established WP policies, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP. 3) Baker is deemed non-notable for his academic work and the article is deleted as per WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E.

Having a section on one minor event dominate an article is in violation of Wikipedia policies. If you are here to write an article on Baker, you are welcome here. If you are here to make him look bad, you are in violation of core WP policies.

Within the rules established by Wikipedia, the choice is yours. What do we do? Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with deleting the article. Chances are that no editors will be sufficiently interested in his academic work to start a new one. Would you like to initiate the deletion process? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to, simply follow the instructions here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. Deletion was your idea. You can explain the justification so much better than I can. It's best that you carry through.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Baker is non-notable or solely notable for this one letter. So why would I submit it for deletion? Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well then. You weren't really offering options, were you? Gamaliel, it's obvious that you need to enter the material yourself, otherwise it will never get entered. You made a good start, why not finish up? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an option. If you can get a consensus of Wikipedians to agree with you, then the article will be deleted. If you wanted an option that involves you not doing anything at all, then pick 2. If you prefer 1 and don't want to work on it yourself, then you will just have to wait for me or someone else to do it. I'll get to it when I get to it, but I don't have the time right now, nor do I feel a rush to beef up the article so other people can fit in more attacks on him. But if you don't want to work on this article, why are you here? Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but I have tried to work on this article, over a year ago. Like 90 percent of the edits made here, my edits failed to meet your standards. That's why I think you need to do the work. Or just delete the thing.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote should be kept in as it shows his continuing views about the case. He took a controversial view and continues to hold it and express it. 216.30.180.132 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't feel your edits are welcome, but policy is policy and we all have to follow it. If you don't agree with my interpretation of it, you are welcome to ask other editors to participate at this article through WP:RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "feeling my edits weren't welcomed" and I don't know where you get that from. However I disagree with your interpretation and do not see why your view must prevail here when other editors disagree. The quote is germane to Baker's current views correct or not. How is is BLP when it is his quote? 216.30.180.132 (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Length a Canard?

Do you really care about length? I shortened the section to make it shorter than you proposed. You reverted that, making the section longer, just to keep out a quote that was notable enough to be used in a NYT article about the case. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Baker quote

Its pretty clear that the consensuses is to keep the quote "quite sadly, mother of a 'farm animal' ". It appears that only one editor is arguing to keep it out of the article and her actions are bordering on disruption and tendentiousness. Are there any other editors involved who think this quote should stay out of the article? CENSEI (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is relevant to the scandal as a whole and should remain. What with the lawsuits against Duke for the faculty's (in particular Baker, Curtis, and Halloway) hostile and prejudicious attitudes are even more germaine. I have read the reasons and the WP rules cited for the deletion of the material and cannot find any justification. I would suggest to those who feel the selection regarding Baker's inflammatory (and later legally declared) false accusations have no place should prudently read up on the scandl. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

February 2011

An editor is trying to 'sanitize' this article to his liking (and seems to feel that he can edit war if necessary to attain that); my take on this man is that his actions during the Duke Lacrosse Scandal define his as much, if not more, than any of his academic works and the article should reflect that.

The WP rules are meant to be followed by everybody, even if it is an admin making these edits. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk!

Yes, they are. Those rules include WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and they are quite clear. I have no wish to "sanitize" anything, and in noting your accusation I should bring up another WP rule everyone should follow, Wikipedia:Civility. We both agree that this incident should be mentioned in the article. The fact that the section about this incident cannot be as long and as extensive as you prefer does not mean that it is being "sanitized". It is abundantly clear by any interpretation of the aforementioned rules that an article on a person widely cited as an leading scholar in his field, a former president of the primary professional organization in that field, a person cited in half a dozen reference books as a leading scholar in that field cannot have multiple paragraphs about a single letter he wrote and almost no information about his professional work. The fact that you have an openly expressed disdain for that work is immaterial and leads me to suggest that perhaps you should take a step back from this article and consider what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia as opposed to your personal feelings about the matter. As far as my personal feelings, I regret not taking a stronger stance on this in the past and my reluctance was largely due to a belligerent and now blocked sockpuppet. In the absence of corrective effort on my part, the BLP violation, which never should have been allowed to stand in the first place, has only grown more egregious. That isn't rhetoric; note that I officially consider this a BLP violation and as such corrective efforts are exempt from 3RR restrictions. You are, of course, welcome to seek out dissenting opinions from other editors and administrators, and I will of cooperate with any such discussions and if there is a consensus among administrators or a wide selection of the Wikipedia community that this is not a BLP violation, I will abide by that consensus. Until then or until this matter is settled I hope that any further discussions will be amiable ones. Gamaliel (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So, how about it?--leave in the mention that the lacrosse team was vindicated? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, so I've tacked on a sentence about it. I don't think we need that entire paragraph recounting the results that was previously in the article though, both for reasons of weight and because people can just click through to the article about it. Gamaliel (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps deletion IS the best course of action here. This seems to be deja vu of already discussed and dealt material. If Baker's notability cannot be reconciled with BLP, then there is little sense in keeping this article. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Houston A. Baker Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080623112241/http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/iGxZW8 to http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/site/iGxZW8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

COI tag

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: I still haven't found any evidence of a "conflict of interest" in this article's revision history. Can you explain why you added these cleanup tags to this article? Jarble (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Houston A. Baker Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121163421/http://newbooksinafroamstudies.com/2011/08/04/houston-a-baker-betrayal-how-black-intellectuals-have-abandoned-the-ideals-of-the-civil-rights-era-columbia-up-2008/ to http://newbooksinafroamstudies.com/2011/08/04/houston-a-baker-betrayal-how-black-intellectuals-have-abandoned-the-ideals-of-the-civil-rights-era-columbia-up-2008/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)