Talk:The Human Stain/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wikipedia "Administrators"

Off-topic discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I found Mr. Roth's comments both justified and hilarious and applaud him for giving this group a much needed spanking for the unreasonable bureaucracy that they regurgitate onto the rest of us. I would like to suggest that perhaps what this incident has taught us is that Wikipedia's so-called "administrators" should have some form of a term limit instead of digging their heels in and considering their so-called "power" as an administrator to be infinately more important than, well, FACTS. Just putting this out there.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, but you need to understand that Wikipedia, at its basis, does not operate on the fundamental Western cultural principle that "truth" and "fact" exist. All that exists for Wikipedia is "verifiability" that this or that data was published somewhere. Therefore, any appeals to fact or truth will always fall on deaf ears here, which is why no serious researcher or academic will ever regard Wikipedia as an authority on anything. To the extent that Wikipedia ever gets anything "right," it's by chance and not by design. Incidents like Mr. Roth's are on ongoing issue for Wikipedia. Prominent figures will be able to get items here changed because Wikipedia will want to contain the bad p.r., but that doesn't change anything, nor will it. Moynihanian (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, yes, yes, more legalese nonesense. What you do not need to understand, but what people like Jimmy Wales needs to understand is that eventually all of the insane bureaucratic administrators like you are going to get him sued in real life (hopefully using some legalese nonsense in their court case if there is any poetic justice). Things are way out of hand and the field day that the media is having by giving all of you people a very public spanking should be a wake up call. Things need to change. Either "term limits" or some form of checks and balances where regular editors can overrule administrators at times like this when administrators refuse to put down the crack pipe. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC) No term limits. No more rules. No new policies. You don't understand that the issue goes straight to the core of what Wikipedia is. If the ship has has a gigantic hole below the waterline, it really doesn't matter who's sailing it. By the way, I am not an administrator at Wikipedia. The mere thought that I'd consider it makes me shudder in horror. Moynihanian (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I don't really understand what's "legalese" about the phrase "we base all our articles on whether or not something can be verified, not if it's true." Prior to Roth's complaint about this page, nearly all existing secondary sources pointed to that innaccuracy, so that's what contributors put in the article because that's what they could verify. The biggest problem on a site like this in basing everything off absolute truth is that we would have no way to show if whatever is being written is actually true, which is a situation that would be much, much worse. Indeed, prior to that open letter, Roth had made very little public indication of what the "truth" actually was. So how were the volunteers who were editing this page supposed to know that what Roth wrote was true? I admit that often the "verifiability, not truth" standard here can lead to problems, such as when most of the sources presented are wrong, which was the case here. But a "truth, not verifiability" policy is much worse. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Two things to say. First, from the tenor of Deolivierafan's "legalese" response to my one comment, I suspect that (s)he thought that, by stating Wikipedia's basic view of truth, that I agree with Wikipedia about the issue. I thought it was clear from the start that I rather vehemently disagree with how Wikipedia approaches that question. In any case, I do hope that my subsequent comment made it unmistakable to Deolivierafan that I am implacably opposed to Wikipedia's stance toward truth to the point that I think that it absolutely discredits Wikipedia's authority on any subject it touches. Secondly, to you Elektrik, your post is an oft-repeated formulation of the ground-level opposition within Wikipedia to the idea that this publication should embrace truth as its ground-level policy. You say "the 'verifiability, not truth' standard here can lead to problems," but I would say that the "standard" is the problem. I put "standard" in quotes because I genuinely believe that, without truth, there are no standards. This is abundantly clear in the daily operation of Wikipedia, where various "standards" and "rules" and "policies" are routinely, blithely, and blatantly ignored. I'll stop there. At some point, maybe I'll add to my talk page. I think it's worthwhile to examine just why Wikipedia and its editors, administrators, and other controllers, whoever they are, have such an aversion to truth as the grounding principle here, as it is throughout serious Western culture.Moynihanian (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion and comment

It's difficult to follow the sources on the page because they're all cluttered in the edit window and some ref tags are wrapped around multiple sources. From a cursory look it seems that we have both literary scholars (critics) and mainstream critics suggesting that perhaps maybe Silk is based on Broyard. I think we should do a number of things: a., separate mainstream media critics from literary critics; b., reformat the sources so they're more accessible and easier to follow; c., make this less important in the article as a whole. As it stands the article has little in the way of literary criticism except the section on the inspiration, half of which is now focused on Mr. Roth's assertions about his own fictional character - so it's getting a little too weighty in that regard. I'm willing to do some research on this book and add more, but first some tidying is in order. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the contretemps which the article occasioned with a great writer obliges us to work on this and show him what wikipedia can do, when collegial editing, reviewing all sources, works towards something more exacting, precise and definitive than the stub we have. I commend your suggestions and look forward to your review. Yes, the first priority is thresh out the refs and to get citation coherence. What we have of the Broyard meme can, in my view remain against WP:Undue, by making the actual body of the text dealing with the novel more substantial. It has engaged a good deal of critical attention in any case, that is just hanging around in google books and libraries to be harvested.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I guess the first thing to do is to dig out the sources and get some sort of workable formatting in place. The edit window is a mess with so many sources. And then work from there and add so that the inspiration contretemps is only a small part of the whole. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To add: I can balance this, but my sense is that it's not anymore about writing a good piece such as for instance The Sun Also Rises or "Big Two-Hearted River"; it's become about the media attention. I'll watch and see how it goes, but will probably end up unwatching and coming back when things die down. I'll see how it goes. I'm not used to working on pages where there's a lot of pile-on and that's what's happening here - hence the cite density. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

From a cursory look, it doesn't sound as if many people read The Human Stain when first published, or the reviews at the time. As I've noted already on this page, critics made the association with Broyard, in some cases speculating that he had been the inspiration, because he was a major literary figure recently written about by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and because of obvious similarities about some aspects of his life. But, most went on to discuss the novel and Silk's and Broyard's choices in the context of a larger discussion of race and identity in the US; it was never just about did they guess right about Roth's inspiration. He did not appear to comment on the public discussion until 2008, and then simply said Broyard was not his model. So when people start adding back content from the reviews, they need to add back material about the larger discussion of race, self-invention, and other elements that were discussed at the time. These themes are getting lost. Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this and am sorry to see more reviews added. The issues that Roth wrote the novel about are being lost. The story about Tumin has made the rounds of academia for quite some time - I heard it in the late 1980s - but when the novel was written the very derivative and small literary millieu in NY looked to one of their own as the inspiration, which I suppose is understandable, but doesn't preclude us from writing an article that looks at all aspects of the book. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

dissappointing to see the undue weight given to the nytimes. here's an academic review [1], and the yale lecture [2]. what the wikipedians don't realize is that the great artist has the last word, and does not have to buy in to all the wikinavel gazing. it's better to defer rather than try to explain the iconoclastic wiki-ideology, or you might end up the villian of "the wiki-stain". 198.24.31.110 (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Question of inspiration?

Coming across this article now after all this has died down, it's really disappointing to see that the extraordinarily minor point of the novel's inspiration now has its own navel-gazing section containing multiple navel-gazing paragraphs, largely sourced to news articles. Wikipedia has always had a hard time writing about itself, and this is a perfect example. The whole affair needs to be reduced to a few sentences and then move on to actual discussion of the book and its significance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and have just taken the first steps to try to re-emphasize larger issues about the book. Have added more of the critical interpretation at the time of publication; critics wrote about more than the possible inspiration of Broyard, especially Kakutani. Removed references to "alleged" and "allegations" - this was not some criminal suit. I think it is better to have Roth's 2012 response in a separate section, under the header: Question of interpretation, as it took place long after most critics wrote about the Broyard issue, both when the book was published and when the film was released. I think it is Undue Weight to repeat so much of what Roth wrote to the New Yorker and that this section should be shortened- okay, he has now spoken out about his source of inspiration, and people can read his comments by going to the New Yorker. Would agree with Bliss Broyard that, by carrying on so much about the Wikipedia article, Roth seemed to be trying to change what critics had written in the past, but her account of her encounter with him could be paraphrased. That is why I think it is important to separate this section from the regular coverage of critics' responses and interpretation common to articles about books.--Parkwells (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Next step is decreasing the content devoted to Roth's argument and the navel-gazing.--Parkwells (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Question of timing

Editors need to respect the chronology of events. Critics commented on the book in 2000, when it came out, and we represent what they said then. Roth did not publicly respond at the time; in 2008, he said it was not Broyard; in 2012 he said it was Tumin. It is POV to try to rewrite the history; this is not a criminal case, but literary discussion. Roth has had his say, and it's covered here. That does not mean that it is not of interest to readers to reflect, as critics did, on the parallels in the lives of Broyard and the character Silk.--Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedic issue is whether "the chronology of events" ends up effectively being a WP:UNDUE presentation of wrong information. Essentially a "teach the controversy" excuse for putting in mistaken but originally widespread belief. I'd say at the very least the author's view should be the first and most prominent, as it should be presumed (not mindlessly believed, but granted a deference in the general case of no significant contradiction) most accurate. After all, articles on diseases do not chronologically present all the inaccurate theories on their origin before getting to current understanding, despite those initial theories having been believed at one time. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Seth nails down my position as well. Once we know that something is wrong, we should minimize the presentation of the wrong material. The right material should be given primacy. The story can unfold chronologically as the wrong story; we would have told the reader the right version at the start. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Just as long as we also don't misrepresent the criticism, which in many cases was, 'there may or may not be a connection to Broyard but it is a useful insight [to the critics and perhaps readers of the work] to contemplate the parallels.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Critical interpretation

This section needs serious work and revision (particularly in light of the controversy over the particular article).

There is a distinct difference between the inspiration for a novel and critical interpretation of a novel. Critical interpretation involves expert opinions. The novelist might have his/her own critical interpretation of their novel. But this does not supercede other valid interpretations.

However, on the matter of the inspiration for a novel, the novelist's word is the final word. The issue of inspiration is not a matter of opinion. It's not the same as critical interpretation. In this case, it is established fact. And Philip Roth, the novelist in question, has gone out of his way to make those facts known.

Roth saw an error on this Wikipedia article regarding the inspiration for the novel and had to write a letter about it to The New Yorker in order to have the mistake corrected. Nevertheless, editors of the page continue to muddy the water on this matter of the novel's inspiration by insisting that the original "Anatole Broyard as inspiration" narrative has validity. It does not.

Roth explains in his letter that the person who inspired his novel was a professor named Melvin Tumin--NOT Anatole Broyard. What Broyard's daughter writes on her Facebook page about the matter is totally irrelevant (and who cites Facebook as a source for valuable information?). When it comes to the facts regarding a novel's inspiration only one opinion matters: the novelist's.

Again, critical interpretation of a novel and the source of the inspiration for a novel are NOT the same thing. And Wikipedia editors of this page would do well to separate the facts of the matter from opinions and heresay.Jpcohen (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, if one writes a novel about "an infirm president and his experiences with war and peace." Whether the inspiration is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson or Jack Kennedy, is one thing, true. But whether critics see parallels with those lives is another significant thing. Here, critics in a documented fashion see parallels to the life of a late 20th Century man who "passed" for white. As for "facebook" the source used here is not facebook, it is Salon. It is not at all surprising that the author might see one thing in his novel, and others see another. No one is forced to read the novel, as the author does and if they are looking at criticism, they are looking for how critics read it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The source of the inspiration for a novel might be open to conjecture before the author chimes in. But once the author does chime in, all other speculation is put to rest (and those other comments become nothing more than speculation). Critics can analyze the text without the author's input. But when it comes to the historical analysis of what source material the author used, the author's word is final. Unless you have some kind of evidence that the author is being false. Otherwise, that's just simply historical fact. What anyone else speculates "might" have inspired the novel is irrelevant at that point.

This is the reason why Roth wrote his letter to Wikipedia in the first place: to set the record straight. It's unfortunate that his letter (which contains statements of fact, not opinion) is not being given the respect it deserves.Jpcohen (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that make Bliss Broyard's statement even more important, because she is giving a reason why Roth might be mistaken and was drawing at least somewhat from his memories of her father? Silverseren^C 15:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Again, the insistance on viewing this as "inspired" or "not inspired" is entirely simplistic, and unfaithful to the sources. Critics found the paralellels to the life useful, regardless of whether it was "inspired" or not. (Read what they wrote.) Authors do not tell people what to think about, and this is what these many critics thought about. The purpose of this article is not to represent the author's POV over others, it is to present the material from a nuetral point of view, which, here, means we relate what the critics thought about, when we are writing about what the critics thought about. However, why a Wikipedia editor thinks Roth wrote his letter is not relevant to this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Alanscottwalker. This is too simplistic as written now. When the author does not bother to correct the record for five years, the first time he was quoted as saying that he had not based his character of Silk on Broyard, it is an error to write here that Kakutani "mistakenly" said Roth may have been inspired by the writer. I think her comment was always "suggested" or "appears"; she was writing a suggestion as part of her review and discussion of issues related to the life stories of Broyard and Silk, in the larger discussion of re-invention. In this case, the error now is not having a cite for Roth's "correction" of the interpretation, both of which instances (2005 and 2012) had been included before. It's all part of the literary discussion related to this novel.Parkwells (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Alanscottwalker was not arguing that the article on The Human Stain is too simplisitic. 2. Kakutani made a speculation about the source material for The Human Stain that turned out to be incorrect. Although the language used in the article about Kakutani is not my own, I believe that it's factually accurate. Kakutani and others book reviewers were speculating about Roth's source material. That is not interpretation of the novel; it's speculation about how Roth wrote his novel. Roth has explained how he came to write the novel. So Kakutani (and others in the mainstream press) were wrong about their speculation.Jpcohen (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm re-adding my previous comments which were erased. Parkwells: you can feel free to disagree with me, but please do not erase my comments. That's highly inappropriate. What I wrote before: I have tried to reorganize various sections of this article to make it clearer. Still, I left in the business about Anatole Broyard. Of course, I think there is way too much information on Anatole Broyard and his mentions in the press, but with all of the media attention and controversy generated about it, that's probably to be expected.

Still, I think editors should consider focusing more energy on writing about the novel (particularly absent is any scholarly response to the novel) and less on minor squabbles over controversial side issues. While it seems clear to me that you can't argue with an author over what constituted his/her source material for a novel, this logic doesn't seem to be clear to other editors who appear to have a lot invested in their side of this argument. And I realize that if Mr. Roth himself couldn't convince those editors of this logic then I probably won't be able to do so either.Jpcohen (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not "erase your comments." There was an edit conflict at a point when we were both adding material; I had to go back and add mine, but did nothing to yours. Perhaps they failed to be saved at the time.Parkwells (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No. One needs to follow the sources. As this has come up before on this page, it seems it bares repeating. Here is a sample of some of the scholarly sources that use the life of Broyard to explore the Silk character:

• Kaplan, Brett Ashley (2005). "Anatole Broyard's Human Stain: Performing Postracial Consciousness." Philip Roth Studies, 1.2 (2005): 125-44. "Many commentators have noted that Roth based the character of Coleman on Anatole Broyard..."
• Shechner, Mark (2003). Up Society's Ass, Copper: Rereading Philip Roth. Univ of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 9780299193546: "Roth modeled Silk in part on former New York Times book editor Anatole Broyard..."
• Tierney, William G. (2002). Interpreting Academic Identities: Reality and Fiction on Campus. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No. 1, Special Issue: The Faculty in the New Millennium (Jan. - Feb., 2002), pp. 161-172 "many assume that Silk is loosely based on Anatole Broyard."
• Faisst, J (2006). "Delusionary Thinking, Whether White or Black or in Between": Fictions of Race in Philip Roth's The Human Stain. Philip Roth Studies, 2006
• Moynihan, Sinéad (2010). Passing into the Present: Contemporary American Fiction of Racial and Gender Passing. Manchester University Press,ISBN 978-0719082290
• Boddy, Kasia (2010). Philip Roth's Great Books: A Reading of The Human Stain. Cambridge Quarterly (2010) 39 (1): 39-60. doi: 10.1093/camqtly/bfp025

Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd tried to address this problem a while ago - the article should reflect everything that's in the body of scholarly criticism. I added a few bits very quickly to tried to balance out things, but that work has basically been erased. In my view what needs to be looked at is that it's the third of a trilogy, it's about the ennui of 20th century America, about academia, about much more than who may or may not have inspired the central character. I'm certain that all the literary criticism above doesn't focus exclusively on the Silk/Broyard relationship - certainly the criticism I've read doesn't. It generally is mentioned in passing, and I think we have an issue of weight here, but it's seems that it's difficult to overcome because those sections are continually being bloated up. One thing to keep in mind too, is that it's not a good idea to search the sources with a specific point in mind, but rather search all the sources and let the sources lead. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it's one aspect of critical study. It became a cause celeb aspect this past August, so there are issues in how to deal with that, but we it seems this article should deal with those things, nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I was here then and added the section that has since been renamed "Thematic concerns" which I've just renamed again. I've been following this, but basically it seems pointless to chime in because the cause celeb aspect has taken on more prominence, in my view, than it should. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the reordering and sub-title, good work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• The reordering is very nicely done and suits the article well. I agree with it. Though I did extend the last sentence of the section a bit to include the point Bliss made, being one of her main three numbered points, that she had indeed met Roth in the past, as had her father, directly contradicting Roth's statement that he didn't remember meeting either of them. Silverseren^C 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• All I did was put back the ordering as it was when written. Re Bliss - I read that and am not entirely sure it's necessary because it puts more emphasis on whether Roth remembers her or not (she said she obviously didn't make enough of an impression for him to remember meeting her) but I can't see what this has to do with the critical interpretation of the novel. I'll not take it out, but would prefer to see more work being done on the rest of criticism and less on the cause celeb aspect of this. I'll try to dig in a bit more myself. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 is absolutely right here. All the "he said-she said" side arguments in the Anatole Broyard controversy don't add constructively to this article's substance on the topic of "Critical Interpretation" of the novel. The amount of space devoted to the Anatole Broyard controversy should be limited and balanced with more information about the actual novel itself.Jpcohen (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

is what someone said on a facebook page "scholarly study"? how is that allowed for a second? is the defensive crouch become a farce? Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 22:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Facebook-derived quote is completely inappropriate to use in a Wikipedia article. But because Salon.com published the Facebook quote, some editors think it is appropriate. I disagree. But then there you have it. Jpcohen (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)