Jump to content

Talk:The Human Stain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Unreferenced tag

I've tagged the plot summary section with {{unreferenced}}, as it's much more than a plot summary. It's the writer's interpretation of the book, with unsourced explanations of symbolism and meaning, and that's original research. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Offensive?

"The name Coleman Silk is a play on many archetypal colors. Cole (like coal) is black. Silk, by contrast, is a soft, white substance known for its delicacy. In Coleman Silk's name, "man" is literally found in balance between black and white, a fact that takes metaphoric significance within The Human Stain."

The comment above is offensive. What is the writing intending to say, that "black" (and by implication, black people) are crude and indelicate, as compared to white people? Volunteer Wiki Editor 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Volunteer Wiki Editor.

I agree, unless the comment is in quotes and has an appropriate citation (e.g. its a direct quote from the author of the book explaining the names). I realize that this comment is long after the issue, but just in case it arises again. In the writer's defense, I do suspect that he/she didn't intend to imply that Black people are crude compared to white people; I think the statement just ended up suggesting that accidentally. -Elizabennet | talk 18:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

I think it would be a good idea to split of the information about the film into a separate article i.e. The Human Stain (film) with a link from this page as seems to be done with other film-book adaptations Madmedea 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely must agree with Madmedea, most of Wikipedia's articles on books that have been made into a movie (or Vice Versa) are in separate articles. It also makes reading a lot more relaxed as it is a lot less information one gets on his screen at once.ferrarius 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the two should have separate articles. I don't know why this discussion died, or what became of it, but I think they should be split. -Elizabennet | talk —Preceding comment was added at 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --D. Monack | talk 03:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary and Character destinies

The plot summary and character destinies sections, together, constituted almost 20kb, and some 85% of the content of this article. They were long and sprawling and difficult to glean much from. Moreover at that length, some 3300 words, any straightforward discussion of the plot would necessarily qualify as a derived work. I have removed them pending a discussion on what to do next. There is no brief, encyclopedic, earlier plot summary to revert to. This is the version created in 2002 by User:80.108.19.76. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

added information to the name

The Human Stain is also a song from Kamelot. Album: Ghost Opera (2007). -link: http://www.kamelot.com/ghostopera.htm 80.242.33.210 (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Yoshi Snipo

Ghost Opera has an entry on wikipedia (which indicates it met the criteria for notability), and it did hit 18 on Billboard 200's Top Heatseekers chart; should this song get a mention at the top of the Human Stain page (using the "may also refer to" tag, after the film mention)? I really don't know, as I'm not familiar with the band, album or song, or how many people searching for "the Human Stain" are actually looking for the song (not the book or film). If someone thinks that many people getting to this page would be looking for the song, then it should get a mention. -Elizabennet | talk 18:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

Okay, I added a relatively brief synopsis of the novel to this article. I say "relatively" brief because the complexity of the story makes it impossible to have a truly brief synopsis. I am drawing mostly from my own memories of the story, so it may not be perfect. Feel free to fix it (not that you need my permission); I just thought that the article needed some sort of synopsis to make it more complete. -Elizabennet | talk 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Potential Yale resources

http://oyc.yale.edu/english/american-novel-since-1945/content/sessions.html

Yale's open courseware has multiple classes about this book. Very in depth stuff based on the other lectures I have watched. However, I have not read this book, so I am tentative to do anything more with this information other than post it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theadorerex (talk • contribs) 01:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting - alas, now a dead link. Will leave your point here as a spur to someone to perhaps find it. 90.195.174.26 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is the current class page for "The American Novel Since 1945".
http://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-291
The lecture on The Human Stain is split into three parts. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, There You Go Again"

rant about Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Bulwersator (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia's appalling, juvenile, arrogant, oblivious behavivor towards Philip Roth is yet one more tune added to the Greatest Hits list. I'm not going to get all earnest and repeat my views. Rather, just this: If Wikipedia wants only to be World Book, then everything's fine. If it wants to set its sights higher, and be credible in the realm of triple-digit I.Q.s and differing viewpoints, then it will have to fundamentally recast its relationships with facts and truth.

For the rest, anyone interested can read my talk page.Moynihanian (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are supposed to be for improving the article, not soapboxing. --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It's rather ironic to cite yet another rule given the nature of his complaint. Agent00f (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as a matter of fact the community has rules so that we don't get sidetracked by pointless discussions like the one we're having now. Can someone please hat this discussion? --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify where such discussions relevant to the wiki forest are allowed, where they won't come under the trite judgement of rule-nazis? Agent00f (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would be a better place than here. --Jprg1966 (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
how does your rant apply to this specific incident? Shenme (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC article

There is a BBC and other articles about the wikipedia controversy. There should be a section about this otherwise it looks like wikipedia is trying to coverup, censor, and hide facts for selfish reasons. This section doesn't have to slam wikipedia but tell the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxy 990 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess we could merge by taking the original discussion that generated the controversy and then add the Roth letter incident. (For the sake of avoiding further controversy, I will not edit any part of this myself.) --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a section addressing this, The_Human_Stain#Inspiration. As for coverup/censor/hide, we're still at a loss to understand some of what Roth has said was said to him. He has presented a version of the story, very publicly, we have tried to understand what exactly happened, here in the above discussion, and still we lack information. From him. Too bad we don't have a high profile public forum to demand that, isn't it? (e.g. comments are not enabled on the BBC article) Shenme (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You are quite correct. --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You are on a public forum, it is high profile. Did Philip Roth demand anything? Harlequinn (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Broyard in literary sources

I'm seeing a bunch of sources that state Broyard in them. I'm going to list them, so that any readers of this talk page can see how prevalent the Broyard connection was touted by literary reviews, critics and other sources. Thanks to a Highbeam access, I'll give a snippet and a link for each one.

  1. "The Human Stain, supposedly based upon the life of the New York Times literary critic, Anatole Broyard, is about Coleman Silk, a Newark-born African American whose fair complexion allows him in his adult life to pass as a white man." -Halio, Jay L.. "The Human Stain.(Review)." Shofar. University of Nebraska Press. 2001. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79839485.html
  2. "The most prominent prototype for Coleman Silk is the very real Anatole Broyard, onetime book critic of the New York Times and legendary Greenwich Village seducer. Broyard's secret racial identity was long rumored. You find Broyard-esque characters all through the books of his friends, Ralph Ellison's "Juneteenth," for instance. There's a beauty named Harry Diadem in Calder Willingham's "Eternal Fire" -- a consummate seducer whose race can only be discerned by the shading under his fingernails." - JEFF SIMON. "RACE MATTERS ; 'HUMAN STAIN' A SMALL TREASURE." The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY). Dialog LLC. 2003. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-22588467.html
  3. "Bizarrely, a number of prominent reviewers, including Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times, efface the tangled interplay of blackness and Jewishness at the heart of "The Human Stain," describing this rather as "the story of a black man who decided to pass himself off as white (pointing to the life story of book critic Anatole Broyard)." - Shapiro, James. "Roth Returns to Oedipal Themes and Rediscovers Tragedy: 'The Human Stain' Transcends the Headlines, Creating Timeless Drama; The Human Stain." Forward. Forward Pub. Co. 2000. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79271599.html
  4. "...the late Anatole Broyard, the "passer" and Times book reviewer on whom Mr. Roth's Coleman Silk is partly based." - "Cinematic Stain Stirs My Soul: Coleman Silk, I Feel Your Pain.(Arts&Entertainment)(Review)." The New York Observer (New York, NY). The New York Observer. 2003. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-109503199.html
  5. "(The Human Stain is, in part, an imagined life of the late Anatole Broyard.)" and "Readers who pick up The Human Stain because of a prurient interest in Anatole Broyard will soon develop another, and perhaps greater, interest in Coleman Silk." - Allen, Brooke. "Twilight Triumphs.(Review)." The New Leader. American Labor Conference on International Affairs. 2000. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63787486.html
  6. "His 2000 novel The Human Stain offered an inherently interesting story inspired by the life of literary critic Anatole Broyard, an important advocate of Roth's early work, who had more or less passed from black to white." - Sailer, Steve. "The gropes of Roth.(Elegy)(Philip Roth)(Movie review)." The American Conservative. The American Conservative. 2008. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181856670.html
  7. "When Roth's novel about passing The Human Stain appeared in 2000, the character who jettisons his black family to live as white was strongly reminiscent of Broyard." - Brent Staples. "The tragic choice of black or white MEANWHILE." International Herald Tribune. International Herald Tribune. 2003. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79633187.html
  8. "In "The Human Stain," Philip Roth's fictional protagonist, Coleman Silk, was loosely modeled on the late Anatole Broyard, for many years a prominent literary critic for The New York Times." - DAVID CRARY, Associated Press Writer. "Decades after segregation's demise, passing for white remains a resonant topic." AP Worldstream. Press Association, Inc. 2003. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-86546890.html
  9. "Philip Roth's novel The Human Stain attracted considerable attention some years back; it was widely read as a fictionalized version of literary critic Anatole Broyard's life. Broyard, an editor at The New York Times Book Review, was a light-skinned black man who decided early in his career to "pass"; he cut ties with his family and lived his life as a white man. " - Williams, Patricia J.. "Rush Limbaugh's inner black child.(The Human Stain, movie adaptation of book by Philip Roth)(Movie Review)." The Nation. The Nation Institute. 2003. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-108993849.html
  10. "Silk, in Roth's novel, is loosely based on a singular figure in American letters -- Anatole Broyard, book critic for the New York Times and conspicuous Manhattan intellectual, legendary champion seducer among all Greenwich Village literati and a man who, for decades, was whispered not to be Jewish at all but really black." - JEFF SIMON. "TWO FOR THE ROAD ; NICOLE KIDMAN AND CATE BLANCHETT ARE IN THE RUNNING FOR TORONTO'S BELLE OF THE BALL." The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY). Dialog LLC. 2003. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-22575724.html
  11. " (Silk's characterization echoes the late Anatole Broyard, a prominent New York Times critic who passed for white for decades.)" - RANDY MICHAEL SIGNOR. "Choices haunt Roth's latest novel." Chicago Sun-Times. Sun-Times News Group. 2000. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4545087.html
  12. "After the Navy, Silk - like Anatole Broyard, the writer and critic on whom Roth's character is undoubtedly modeled - passes into white society in Greenwich Village. Concocting a Jewish biography for himself, he marries and becomes a classics professor at a small college in Massachusetts" - "ROTH MAKES ART OF RECENT HISTORY.(DAILY BREAK)(Review)." The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA). McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. 2000. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63515456.html
  13. " It (The Human Stain) is Roth's free fantasy of the real case of Anatole Broyard, the New York Times book critic and New York intellectual, who was assumed to be Jewish but whose black identity was only revealed after his death from prostate cancer." - "A QUICK GLANCE AT THE FESTIVAL AND ITS FILMS." The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY). Dialog LLC. 2003. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-22575597.html
  14. "In Robert Benton's first-rate adaptation of Philip Roth's novel, he plays Coleman Silk, a secretly black classics professor and college dean from Jersey who has, all his life, passed for white (the book's most obvious referent was the very real late New York Times literary critic Anatole Broyard, whose black roots were long rumored but only confirmed after his death from prostate cancer)." - JEFF SIMON. "SIR ANTHONY SPEAKS ; HOPKINS HAS HIS SAY ON ADDICTIONS, HIS NEW TORRID FILM AND HIS FAVORITE LEADING LADIES." The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY). Dialog LLC. 2003. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-22590812.html
  15. "The late writer Anatole Broyard "passed" as white for much of his adult life but was in fact African American. His story is said to have partly inspired the novel The Human Stain and the recent movie based on the book, starring Anthony Hopkins and Nicole Kidman." - Bennetts, Leslie. "The secrets your family is hiding: even in the age of tell-all, some things are hush-hush. The explosive stuff we keep under wraps. Plus: celebs caught in the web of family lies." Good Housekeeping. Hearst Magazines. 2004. Retrieved September 08, 2012 from HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-111573793.html

Quite clearly, it was just not a few critics who mentioned it or speculated, but a great many have this belief. Actually, in my search, I cannot find a note from Roth dismissing or attempting to dismiss this speculation on any the Highbeam articles. All these sources do add something of note, that the misconception is very pervasive and covers many 'reliable' sources. The misconception may be wrong, but it is a very prominent misconception tied to the relationship of Broyard and Roth's relationship and similarities to Broyard's life. I strongly suggest that backing the misconception's prevalence be noted and not removed, because it is widely held by literary critics and resources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but it must be clear it is a misconception, given the current events. I wonder if Mr. Roth mentioned the association with Melvin Tumin before the publication of his open letter. If not, ther previous (and criticized) version of our article used available facts in a very good way.
See this (publ. in 2008 by Bloomberg):
Hilferty: Is Coleman Silk, the black man who willfully passes as white in "The Human Stain", based on anyone you knew? Roth: No. There was much talk at the time that he was based on a journalist and writer named Anatole Broyard. I knew Anatole slightly, and I didn't know he was black. Eventually there was a New Yorker article describing Anatole's life written months and months after I had begun my book. So, no connection.
--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct, it is a misconception, but the misconception's existence is rooted in verifiable sources. Verifiability, not truth is the burden. Its hard to say X is true, like Global Warming the 'truth' is not absolute. Even how the Water cycle works is not 'truth' because our views are constantly evolving with more material. The difference is that one we can say 'this is said' and 'this is'. Typically the two go hand in hand, and if a differing view or opinion exists, then the counter should also be cited under 'verifiability'.
To surmise. The misconception exists, that's for sure, but the claim of the misconception is wrong. Normally, the misconception is minor, but this misconception is/was widely held across many sources. So the misconceptions existence should be noted and make clear WHY it is a misconception. I've done this on other articles; acknowledge the existence of a misconception, but provide an authority's (this case Roth) viewpoint which addressed the misconception, directly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The current version seems very balanced: what Roth said in 2008 + what Roth said in 2012 + the Broyard possibility that multiple serious critics have said jumped out at them "correctly or not." As long as we keep these three elements with such clarity, Roth's indignation as expressed via the BBC etc. appears as the misunderstanding of Wikipedia (& the policies that enable us to make a better and reliable encyclopedia) that it is. Wareh (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Most critics don't think independently but just echo the previous person they read. That's what I see in the list above: One critic says "based on Broyard" and the rest just copy..... like the game Whisper Down the lane. The information is still factually wrong, even if a billion people come to believe it. IMHO Roth should have just sued wikipedia for defamation of character to have the comment removed (since they were unwilling to do it per a request direct from the author being biographied). ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Allowing authors to censor any critics' comments they disagree with is obvious madness. I'm sorry Roth doesn't like what critics have written about his book, and I'm glad he's published a rebuttal we can put here, but we're still going to mention that the critics have written it. Khazar2 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree, censoring countless reliable sources by attributing as to why they may have written so (because they are X) is NOT how we write an encyclopedic project, however revolting Mr. Roth may find it. The article as it stands now finds the right balance. Kanatonian (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Nobody has mentioned this explicitly, but I think it's worth raising the point that including all viewpoints (apart from being Wikipedia policy) is completely compatible with Barthes' postmodern "Death of the Author" view that the author is not the sole definitive voice on the interpretation of the text. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but authors often endorse or deny particular interpretations of a book for legal or personal reasons, while critics may see evidence supporting a different interpretation. The author's statement of intention is an important one, but not so important as to expunge other viewpoints. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"repeatedly"?

On what basis does this article claim that Roth denied anything 'repeatedly.' The one source cited does not support that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I removed the word 'repeatedly', though he makes the claim and there is a source, it does not back up 'repeatedly' in a general sense, but the word 'repeatedly' gives a different connotation for that sentence. Good catch. This article still has much work to be done on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sue them

Total side track; feel free to discuss this on your own pages. --Errant (chat!) 07:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Author should have just sued wikipedia for defamation of character to have the comment removed (since they were unwilling to do it per a request direct from the author being biographied). ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
In what sense is it even possibly defamation? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Well you know how wikirules says, "We do not seek truth but verifiability". Oftentimes the same applies to a lawsuit (not always truth). For example Nielsen Ratings said they would sue wikipedia if the list of TV Markets was no removed. Nielsen claimed it was a copyright violation. The claim had no truth (the list falls under fair use) but the lawsuit still proceeded forward. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems it is just easier and cheaper to write a letter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems it is just easier and cheaper for wikipedia to LISTEN TO THE AUTHOR when he says, "My book was inspired by an old friend of mine, not Broward" instead of ignoring the author and pretending his opinion is less important than a bunch of critics who are not mindreaders but just guessing. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems Wikipedia has published the authors statement. What critics choose to do is what critics choose to do; the relative importance of what critics choose to do is not for Wikipedia to decide. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Roth's refutation of the critics in question *was there already.*Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
True, to the extent it existed, apparently. Just not the unpublished details, which as far as has been shown were unpublished by Roth (or anyone else) until September of 2012. Alanscottwalker (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Circling the wagons

This is disturbing. Nothing that has occured was or is beyond correction with a few edits, but we are seeing a number of interesting psychological phenomena at work amongst the WP community. Still, some editors are 'circling the wagons' even now a better article has been made. Some quibble that you can find no 'secondary source material' to claim Mr Roth has ever complained before, thus you are not obliged to treat it seriously; others criticise his use of off-wiki correspondence, and, offended by being excluded from part of the important events, begin to imply that it may not exist, as in the worst sort of conspiracy theory. Some belive that if they are not personally the 'Wikipedia administrator', then noone else could possibly hold such an important role and yet not be counted amongst WP editors. Some takte this a step further and ask Mr Roth to prove to them, personally, that he is indeed Mr Roth and his associates, before they will admit that he understands his own book: "Show Us The Birth Certificate!" (although, presumably, as it is a primary source, they would not accept it as a reliable source) Still more point with pride to the article "as is stands now", somehow completely ignoring that it did not stand up to scrutiny "when the complaint was made." Others continue to use the Freedom of Speech defence, alleging that Mr Roth wanted to censor critical comments he disliked. No: he wanted WP's editors to understand that the statement were not factually accurate and based upon misconception. Still more editors begin to cite dozens of literary critics who compound this error of fact, in the vain hope that by citing as many sources as possible sharing the same misconception, quite possibly derived from exactly the same original source, they can trump the evidence of the person who actually wrote the book and has the "sole evidential authority" to state who the character is based upon. The best of all is when some editors state their thanks that Mr Roth has published a complaint (and online!) - so that they can now at last cite it as a reliable secondary source in the article, presumably by quoting news reports that refer to his original complaint, to keep the secondary source mantra alive! ;-)Ethdhelwen (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The secondary source thing is irrelevant. A primary source would have worked just fine. The issue is that Roth was offering no primary source. What exactly were we supposed to add to the article as a reference after he had changed it? What was needed was for him to state the facts on his personal website or blog, which could then be used as a source for the changes. Otherwise, we're just shortchanging our readers in that regard.
Secondly, Roth was trying to censor the article. The article already previously stated that Roth had said the literary critics were wrong. Sure, it could have been emphasized better, but he was acting as if the believed inspiration mentioned by a ton of critics should not be mentioned at all. And that is inappropriate, because, erroneous or not, it was their opinion and it was being cited and explained in the article as an opinion. He had no right to try and remove the information and then, when told that he couldn't, he went and had this little fit we're seeing now.
Do any of the people that start these incidents actually consider, maybe, I dunno, sending a polite email to Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation (or if they're in the know, to OTRS) explaining the issue before running straight to the press complaining that things weren't done exactly as they wanted because they should be in charge of everything in their article? SilverserenC 08:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ethdhelwen, you misinterpret my actions of citing a bunch of sources. The reason I cited so many of those is to show how the idea 'evolved' from 'supposedly/purportedly' into 'based on' and so forth. Even after the release of the movie, the misconception was still prevalent in many major newspapers. The whole reason I cited those is because the misconception was so entrenched that it should not be removed simply because the author states it is wrong, it can be assumed that the misconception has substantial ground to be cited as a misconception rather than be dismissed as a common error. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As with anything, there are greater and lesser arguments pro and con, but the thoughtful exposition above fails to deal with some things. In theory and in best practice, everything in an article needs a WP:Reliable source ("RS"). By logic and common consent a User or Editor, here saying it is so, is not that (although, it can be the start of a productive discussion and article improvement about that). No Wikipedia editor drew the parallel to the life of Anatole Broyard, others did that — extensively. However, to the extent there are such parallels and they were drawn and documented by others in RS, they may (or may not) increase, understanding, appreciation, or knowledge with respect to the subject, or art, of the work (although not, it is now very clear its "inspiration") -- the reader has been given the knowledge to decide that. Every article on this Project can be improved, but the two prior iterations -- from August 2012 see, (in lead, discussing Broyard dispute); and (not in lead, discussing Broyard parallel) -- of this article did seem to try to take some care with the various sources then shown to be in existence. So, did the unknown "correspondent" actually tell the author he can't possibly be RS, or did something else occur, and a misunderstanding ensue? At any rate, now the published statements of this author are, as they were before, RS for this article. (As an added benefit, if not particularly for the Wikipedia organization, or Mr. Roth, it does appear the world has gained a new understanding of the inspiration of this work.) Finally, apologies to Mr. Roth, if some volunteer here mistreated him in August, but it seems doubtful that was his or her true intention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
So. The Human Stain stained Wikipedia? --Pawyilee (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
'The human stain' usually does, in most things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well fellas, look where Wikipedia bureaucracy got us - http://gizmodo.com/5941460/how-philip-roth-outfoxed-wikipedias-idiotic-rules Perhaps at some point a bit more flexibility should be allowed.Nintenboy01 (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
But look at the comments. Pretty much everyone is supporting Wikipedia and calling Roth out. The same is true for the commenters on the Ars Technica piece. It looks like the readers are smart enough to see through the BS Roth article. SilverserenC 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Speaking as a neutral but informaed observer, Wikipedia comes off badly. It is certainly a shame as the concept of a user-based encyclopedia on the Internet has or had great promise. The problem is in execution. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the folks in charge within Wikipedia at this point in time tend to be dictatorial and suffer from a air of self-importance. In this instant case, the problem should have never escalated to this point. A shame!Wa3frp (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course it comes off bad. An award winning writer told his half of the story, and there's no chance of an organized rebuttal. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Literary critics need to be included

The article already clearly points out that Roth has stated their speculation is wrong, but the fact that a ton of notable literary critics have made the connection should be included. And it's not OR. SilverserenC 02:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said above, it's compatible both with Wikipedia's "all viewpoints" policy, and Barthes' "Death of the Author"; many critics from various litcrit schools would find it a pretty outdated idea that "the author is the greatest authority on their own work". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about it like that, but I guess that's true. While the author may have meant one specific thing from their work, that doesn't mean people can't take it to mean something else as well. And there's nothing wrong with them getting more meaning out of it than the author originally intended there to be. SilverserenC 02:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Roth's objection seems to be about Roth's inspiration for the work, not the meaning of the work, which is always going to be in the eyes of the reader. This is not the first time I've seen an author ravage critics for ascribing motive and/or inspiration, both of which the author, not the reader or critic, would seem to be the most reliable source. While it's true that in some ways none of us ever knows the full details of why we have done something, projecting our suppositions onto an author should wait until they cannot object. htom (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, then it's a good thing we have the article specifically explaining the critics that thought that and Roth saying otherwise. Though his character does seem to have certain paralells to Broyard, so I can understand why people would think that he was the inspiration. SilverserenC 03:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you worked for the New York Times or followed it closely, knew the history and such, it was a logical leap given the circumstances. How common could such a character really be, and both known by the same writer? Though such errors do not seem to have been addressed till much later, which cemented such a conception through the media. Happens often enough that one outlet gets something wrong, all the others will pick up on it and run with the false info as well. Namely, the 'Armed Neo-nazis patrolling Sanford Florida' in the wake of the Trayvon Martin's death. Just how many outlets did that, most of which we call reliable, 10+. And the entire story came from a blog which no one fact checked. This incident seems positively trivial in light of such claims, which were thankfully discovered to be false on Wikipedia before insertion, and the news outlets didn't retract it or admit to error. A bit of 'literary gossip' having more detail than the author's refutation may not have been the best balance in light of WP:WEIGHT, but the events surrounding this mess are just a 'flash in the pan'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on the novel was more than "technically correct" before Roth wrote to The New Yorker, as he had never before identified his inspiration for the novel. It reflected part of the wide discussion when the book was published. Because of the topic and the stature of Anatole Broyard in the literary world, there were numerous suggestions by literary critics (which Roth later characterized as nothing more than "literary gossip") of associations/inspiration/and other connections, "accurate or not", as Lorrie Moore wrote, of the parallels between certain aspects of the character Coleman Silk and Broyard. The talk page of the article includes more than 15 references in RS about this. It does not mean the critics could speak for Roth; I included references to these writers because their writing was part of the public discussion at the time the book was published - really, a larger discussion about race in American society that went beyond the book. I also noted that Roth said Broyard did not inspire the novel, based on a 2008 interview. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that Roth complained in writing to the NY Times or other publications at the time that had published those reviews. The 2008 interview was the first public reference to his disclaimer about Broyard that I came across. I believe his 2012 open letter is the first time he has publicly told the story of his inspiration. The Nobel Prize-winning poet Eugenio Montale published essays on literature under the title "The Second Life of Art". That's what literary criticism is about. To narrow it down to whether or not the critics' speculations about Roth's source of inspiration was correct, or to allow it all to be characterized as "literary gossip", is to misrepresent what they wrote. The reviews generally went well beyond the parallels between Silk and Broyard, and fully acknowledged Roth's creativity in creating his characters and plot. Many also addressed the larger issues in American life of race, creation of identity, political correctness, and other topics which Roth explored in his novel.Parkwells (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few which directly or "tentatively" state that Broyard was an inspiration or model in part for Silk, including several in the journal devoted to issues related to Roth's work:

  • 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

I think we should include the first few at a minimum. A 2012 edition of Philip Roth Studies also has a piece declaiming these assertions. Jokestress (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. These look useful, thanks but it seems the (first) expansion should be to the reception section on matters which may be unrelated or tangential to the Broyard, angle. Broyard seems one angle, among others, to understanding or appreciating the subject, work, or art. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be good to get the focus of the article back on the book; the reviewers often discussed the issue of race and passing in terms of larger issues of identity and self-invention in American society. There was a lot written when the book came out and since, as noted above. It was the prominence of Broyard in the literary world, and Gates having written at length about him, that led to reviewers associating him with Silk and the plot of the novel. Parkwells (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

August 20, 2012 edit to Anatole Broyard

The edit concerned is by Nabokov9 here. Secretlondon (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I see the general connection but it does not seem to have been a matter that was discussed at that article. There were also edits by an IP (but they maybe the same User?) on August 20 to this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The correspondence is WP:UTRS ticket #3217, and I think that's the only relevant edit. UTRS tickets are signed (name) English Wikipedia Administrator. As it is UTRS I'm limited in what I can say. I'm not sure I should have highlighted the edit, but I'm in an odd situation. Secretlondon (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I hope we have not been discussing the wrong article. It does now appear there may be a connection between the IP and Nabokov9 both identifying as the Roth biographer see [1]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Ahhhhh. Finally some questions get answered. The contents of Roth's letter at the New Yorker are now accurate without any real doubt. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, there has never been any reason to doubt there was something like "correspondance" (or, at least communication), imo; what exactly those communications were, except for the snippit, and what was or was not a reasonable way to characterize them remains unknowable, at present, without seeing them in full. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Why did Nabokov9 write to UTRS? The account's block log is empty. Did one of their IPs get blocked? --JN466 15:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I think a mistaken IP block which stopped accounts from editing. I don't know which as I couldn't find anything. Secretlondon (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Two IPs that seem to be Nabokov9 editing logged out are User talk:166.147.72.32 and User talk:166.147.72.21. Both of these have plenty of vandalism warnings on their talk pages, so it might be a range block related to these IPs which does not show up in the individual IPs' block logs. Is that feasible? (Clearly, he was on a dynamic IP shared with a vandal.) --JN466 16:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I've searched for range blocks from those 2 IP addresses and I can't find any. I've also looked into the admin name he gave and there are no relevant blocks around the time he appealed. It could be that he was editing from a completely different IP address.Secretlondon (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It may be that the only person who could solve this would be someone with checkuser permissions, who then wouldn't be able to share. Secretlondon (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it, Secretlondon. JN466 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion on making the UTRS ticket public is here. Secretlondon (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I commented on it. It is not a simple matter and I believe making sure this happens again will be the best course of action we can take. The UTRS system is questionable to release and we need not save-face. Learn from the event and make appropriate changes so it doesn't happen again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Request clarification

I'm trying to find out whether this article ever had the phrase "allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard" before the Philip Roth New Yorker article appeared [2]. Why? This is what Roth wrote in the New Yorker piece:

My novel “The Human Stain” was described in the entry as “allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard.” (The precise language has since been altered by Wikipedia’s collaborative editing, but this falsity still stands.)

He did not provide a link or date for the revision. So I started looking through revisions and couldn't find it. Finally, I did an XML complete dump of all 437 revisions of the article. It cannot be found.

The first appearance of this phrase is actually quoting Roth's lament, so that doesn't count. (2012-09-10T01:39:45Z) Here's the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Human_Stain&diff=511623418&oldid=511622826

While this does not negate's Roth's claim, I'm trying to pinpoint exactly what Roth was quoting. An admin or talk page comment perhaps? -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be the messages involved in the WP:UTRS ticket #3217 mentioned elsewhere on this talk page - I speculate he's working from the messages between his biographer and the Wikipedia administrator handling that ticket. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Check the Anatole Broyard article. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting. I didn't recognized that "allegedly" either, but did not research it. Makes it sound like a criminal case, which was never the way the reviewers approached it.Parkwells (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I checked the whole revision history of Anatole Broyard and the word "allegedly" does not show up. I'm not sure where Roth is getting that quote from. Seth, at least from the context of the New Yorker piece, he seems to be directly quoting from the article. The following does not seem to be referring to anything other than the exact article The Human Stain.
"I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel “The Human Stain.” The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed... My novel “The Human Stain” was described in the entry as “allegedly inspired by the life of the writer Anatole Broyard.” (The precise language has since been altered by Wikipedia’s collaborative editing, but this falsity still stands.)
Everything here seems to imply these are the exact words of the Wikipedia , while it is not. This does not negate his concerns, which are valid, but it shows that precision is important, whether it's Roth or Wikipedia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It was the entry on his bio regarding the book that included the statement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that explains it! -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Well done, TDA. JN466 20:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good job! (I agree my speculation turned out to be incorrect) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Reason for Broyard claims

I rewrote the section regarding the Broyard claims to note that sources claiming him as a source of inspiration were specifically citing the fact that both Broyard and Silk passed themselves off as a white. Parkwells has been repeatedly trying to remove wording that clearly notes this as the reason. For purposes of accuracy it should be clearly noted that this specific similarity is what motivated the claims.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think your version is better. More detail is often better than less. SilverserenC 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
To explain - Silk's passing as a white man is already noted in the Plot Summary; that is why I shortened that reference in regard to Broyard.Parkwells (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

The Inspiration section is full of blatant original research. The same rules that apply to Roth's biographer apply to all Wikipedia editors: statements about the content of this article prior to the publication of the open letter must be backed up by secondary sources. Not primary sources, and not, as is currently the case, no sources at all.

chocolateboy (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the information about the "misstatement" be original research unless a clear, secondary source is provided? Is not the addition of this information by wikipedia editors a conflict of interest? How does a site which demands an arbitrary third party take on everything provide an arbitrary third party take upon itself?
Some means of community approval for a verifiable summary of events should be done. Matters involving wikipedia sourcing itself, written by itself(editors belong to the site as a whole), and verifying itself should be the most important and most transparent undertaking of all; to borrow a phrase, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Better to ask this than to arbitrarily and unilaterally attempt to change the page. This is definitely a matter for discussion, whether here or elsewhere. -71.54.126.82 (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
@Chocolateboy - did you actually read the policy you are referring to? The policy does in fact permit the use of primary sources in some instances, and this is one of those instances. As far as what Roth was allegedly told, all we have is an anonymous IP claiming to be Roth's biographer deleting a section of properly cited critical interpretations of Roth's work that Roth did not approve of, despite the fact that the article already noted the fact that he contested those interpretations. I am curious, as many of us are, to learn more about this 8/25 print letter Roth was allegedly sent - it sounds like that is where the procedure was botched, if anywhere. However, that does not change the fact that Roth's initial objection was groundless. The fact that the article already noted that Roth contested the critics shows that no one objected to letting him have his say about the matter.Sylvain1972 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. And i'm starting to wonder whether this letter even exists. SilverserenC 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason to cast aspersions on Roth. To translate from the language of Olds English into Modern Tech, when he writes "was told by the "English Wikipedia Administrator" - in a letter dated August 25th", he likely means "received an email message on 8/25 from someone with a sig of "English Wikipedia Administrator"". People of his age sometimes call emails "letters", as they grew up at a time when text communication could only be done by a laborious process of impressing an opaque substance onto a fragment of a dead tree, and having this item physically shipped the entire distance between writer and reader, like it was a piece of equipment. A bit of charity should be applied to his phrasing there, keeping in mind the Digital Divide. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't be all tongue-in-cheek, please, sarcasm doesn't magically announce itself. Though if it was not sarcasm; it crude to demean the words of a writer of such caliber in such a manner; namely because Roth did not make the attempt himself, "... my interlocutor was told by the “English Wikipedia Administrator”—in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor..." Let's not get in word choice with 'interlocutor', but clearly it was not Roth's experiences, it was Roth's 'interlocutor' relaying the response that the 'interlocutor' received. Just what exactly was that exchange? It is unknown. Attributing it to Roth, directly, is part of the misconceptions that sparked the last letter. Were there easier ways to do this, yes, but it is part of a cycle of errors. I forget where the nice graph and explanation of this cycle was, but it involved outside people trying to fix Wikipedia, but being reverted by editors, complaining to admins, and falling flat on policy than rather refer it properly, start the cycle over by making the same changes. If it was direct, we wouldn't be here, and perhaps because the path is not so obvious, we should consider fixing that. If you know what I am talking about, you've been here too long, if you don't then you've never needed to look and probably don't need to look, but hopefully you are curious as to WHY its not so obvious when the other policies are. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. I really, really, should know better by now - the smallest amount of humor or playful phrasing, Does Not Work. OK, in the dullest of terms - Roth stated, exact words "my interlocutor was told by the "English Wikipedia Administrator" -- in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor". Now, in the above discussion Sylvain1972 says "print letter Roth was allegedly sent". But Roth does not use the word "print" with "letter" (and it was sent to the "interlocuter", but that's not as relevant). This apparently caused Silver seren to state "And i'm starting to wonder whether this letter even exists". There is no reason to say such a thing. If the "interlocutor" were to have been sent an email message, not a "print" letter, that would be as expected. Or, from another direction, if Roth had written along the lines of "my interlocutor was told by (someone with the sig of) "English Wikipedia Administrator" -- in (an email) dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor" - I don't think Silver seren would doubt that happened. Roth is unarguably a master writer, but he is of a much earlier generation. It does not to demean him to point out that his terminology may be slightly confusing to people significantly younger than him due to subtle language shifts over several decades. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
We can only speculate on the exchange of letters/emails between the interlocutor and the alleged Wikipedia administrator. The correspondence is not publicly available, right? Let's assume that the interlocutor first contacted someone on Wikipedia. What was the form of his request? Was it clear that the person is authorized by Mr. Roth to speak for him? Personally, I would be highly suspicious to believe anyone how claims to speak for someone without serious and convincing evidence, especially when changing the content of an article here on Wikipedia. And what was the form of the response of the alleged "Wikipedia administrator"? How can we verify that the person is a Wikipedia admin? Anyone can claim in a private email correspondence to be a Wikipedia admin. The media criticizing us and also Mr. Roth forget one important thing: This project doesn't act as a single mind or body, it consists of many volunteers and erring human beings. Of course, Wikipedia administrators should know that similar requests may be sensitive and must be dealt with special care and respect, however, the admins aren't infallible. Mistakes and misunderstandings occur in all human affairs.
The fact is that the criticized revision of the article provided good and neutral information based on the author's opinion and the available critical reception, anyone can easily check it here. The associaton with Mr. Tumin was not known before Sept. 2012, as far as I know, therefore the previous revision of the article cannot be considered incorrect, it was just incomplete, because the author's full opinion and inspiration wasn't known. I support mentioning of the previous misunderstanding in the article, as it gives a broader picture of the subject to our readers and prevents further confusion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The instant descent of this discussion into off-topic speculation about the bona fides of Roth and his biographer amply demonstrates the fact that this article is being edited in anger rather than in accordance with Wikipedia policy. To drag the discussion back on-topic and answer the sole question that was quickly swallowed up in the noise ("did you actually read the policy you are referring to?"): Yes. Wikipedia policy isn't remotely unclear on the matter:

  • Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.
  • ... primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.
  • All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Statements about the prior state of the article need to be backed up by secondary sources or removed as original research. Resurrecting links to reviews that appeared in an old version of the article to "vindicate" its prior content ("the article had noted his position related to the reviews before his letter to The New Yorker") is original research. If the accuracy, neutrality, fairness, comprehensiveness &c. of the old section is newsworthy, it should be easy to find secondary sources that point this out.

The purpose of the Inspiration section is to neutrally describe the inspiration for the novel with particular reference to Roth's open letter. It is not to exonerate Wikipedia or correct inaccurate coverage of Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy, Wikipedians or the prior content of the article.

chocolateboy (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In this case what we are arguing is moot, given that a secondary source was provided to verify that Roth's rebuttal was always present. But the policy excerpts you've pulled forward illustrate my point, not yours. "Primary sources are permitted if used carefully" . .which they were in this instance. No interpretive claims or analysis was made. I quite simply pointed out that Roth's rebuttal was always there, and cited the primary source (in this case the earlier version) and right there for all the world to see, no "interpretative claims, analysis or synthetic claims" included or necessary. The "inspiration" section does indeed describe the episode with reference to Roth's open letter, and there is no reason why we can't include relevant facts even if they complicate Roth's claims.Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The incomprehension of policy here is frustrating. If you'd have read WP:V, specifically WP:ABOUTSELF, you'd see that the author is, in fact, a reliable source with regards to the works he's authored. We could quote blogs or unreliable websites as sources for certain claims (like, say, for the inspiration of the book) as long as Roth is either writing it or being interviewed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no indication anywhere except in the New Yorker letter that anyone ever told Roth that he is not a reliable source with regard to his own work. I certainly have never argued that. And his rebuttal has been present in the article the whole time.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"the" [sic] Administrator??

In his New Yorker piece about various stupidities of the way Wikipedia sometimes works, Philip Roth refered to "the 'English Wikipedia Administrator'". I was going to post a comment saying that any "English Wikipedia Administrator" is only one of many administrators (with a lower-case initial "a") of the English-language portion of Wikipedia. (I am another; probably some who have edited this this present article are also administrators.) But you can't log in to post a comment on the New Yorker's web site via your Google or Facebook account or the like; you have to create a new account there. That is obnoxious. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I confess! I am the "English Wikipedia Administrator" - the secret has been a burden on my soul for lo, these many days. :-) But seriously, I have to wonder how someone as smart as Roth couldn't have managed to read any of WP's policy pages, think through the pitfalls that they address ("wait a minute, maybe anyone could claim to be me and get all kinds of nonsense inserted that way!"), or notice how articles frequently quote interviews as a source for the state of an author's mind. He could have snapped his fingers and gotten the info published in an interview any time during the past decade. Stan (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "I have to wonder how someone as smart as Roth couldn't have managed to read any of WP's policy pages", etc. Let me try to explain. I graduated from MIT. In fact, I have two degrees from MIT, BS in both Math and in Physics (really, I'm not being hyperbolic). I say that here just to indicate that, to be immodest, I do rank rather highly in terms of abstract intelligence. Plus, I have been participating in Wikipedia for many years now. And - I still find it a confusing tangle of obscure and contradictory bureaucracy. Nobody like Roth (or his helper) - a busy professional - is going to read WP's policy pages and be enlightened, as those pages are chunks of alphabet soup in a stew of insider jargon, then often interpreted by a subculture that is likely quite alien to him. The issue you bring up with identity verification is a case in point of the alienness. In his world, identities are verified by editors using known contact information. That Wikipedia does not do this - indeed rejects it - is just one aspect which is very hard to explain to "outsiders" and typically strikes them as incomprehensible. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I also thought of "busy professional", but didn't say it, because in this case it's really an euphemism for an attitude of "I'm too important to be bothered with the details of how somebody else's project operates, they should just jump to do my bidding". I've experienced the same attitude a hundred times in the open-source world; a professional with a long resume takes offense when some student has the temerity to point out that the professional's code contribution lacks comments, doesn't follow the coding standard, and has serious bugs. The part where the student's critiques are completely correct is secondary. Thousands of high-schoolers and college students can manage to figure out how to get stuff done in WP, but they aren't handicapped by the monstrous egotism that is an occupational hazard of the professional intellectual. Stan (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are exactly right - "I'm too important to be bothered with the details of how somebody else's project operates". This is precisely the opposite of the view of too many Wikipedia contributors, which is that the details of Wikipedia are so important that such Wikipedia contributors have achieved preeminent status by knowledge of those details, and everyone else in the world should defer to that status, and "jump to do [the] bidding" of Wikipedia administrators. You have stated this division with admirable bluntness. Now what? Think carefully about the implications. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what you're getting at - any outsider approaching any communal project should expect to operate by its rules. A famous outsider might get lucky and be guided by an admirer; I really tried to help Carl Hewitt during his unfortunate episode with WP for instance. I'm no particular admirer of Roth, but if he or the interlocutor would have sent me an email saying "how do I fix this", I would have been glad to explain the tricky points of this kind of change and give advice ("dude, just phone up your favorite journalist and give an interview, WP's gnomes will do the rest"). Perhaps the unhelpful mystery admin was a Roth-hater; there are a few of those, ha ha. Stan (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that he expects something called an "encyclopedia" to operation by rules where subject matter experts are high-status (which are his rules, of course). I know Wikipedia does not do this, but it's a common misconception. Now having stated this divide, apparently on which we both agree factually (the difference being in how we regard it), the issue is then what follows. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This seems a rather unsubtle critique. Wikipedia 'rules', to the extent they exist, in for example WP:Reliable sources do give "high-status" to subject matter experts. Talk pages are filled sometimes with discussions of the expertise and the deference that should be paid to published subject matter experts in constructing article content. And article are often filled with references to subject matter experts. So, while it's true that no-one can possibly know the subject matter expertise of any individual User, it is also true that in matters of editing, the rules advantage the subject matter expert, who presumably knows and can cite the published subject matter experts, can evaluate them and write about them coherently. Of course, they do have to (only) sometimes be willing to discuss them with another 'Anonymous', which perhaps is unusual in their 'culture.' And then freely release their work product to the world, which is very unusual (almost inimical) to their 'culture.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No, there's a subtlety there which is being lost. I wish I had a good way to have the following accepted, but I know from past experience it probably won't advance: Wikipedia editors abstract expertise into process plus forms, and away from experts. A person has respect only to the extent that they play the Wikipedia games, here very obvious in Reliable Sources. Being an expert oneself often has no respect whatsoever, again, obvious in the absurdity of denying Roth the ability to simply make statements about his own mind. Please don't rush to explain to me why this is good idea, I've heard it. I grasp that's the Wikipedia editor view, really, I do. Note what the experts need to do is not "discuss" - far too kind a word - but go through a gauntlet of rules-mongering by martinets who are often downright hostile to experts. Again, as issue of values, it's not clear where to go from here. But as issue of fact, it seems fairly clear. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Roth has not been denied the ability to simply make statements about his own mind. It's there -- in the article -- right now. So, that "fact" is not only "unclear" it is incorrect; what is needed is that the source of Roth's statement is confirmed, for all the world, as coming from Roth. If that's a gauntlet, than so be it, but it's rather doubtful it is. Experts didn't gain expertise by being silent and weak. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Needing to get a supposed third-party Reliable Source publication does not qualify as "the ability to simply make statements about his own mind". This exchange is a case in point of the gauntlet. Now, it's not a big case, and for tone, note I'm not very annoyed. But, look, just to point out what's going on - I have to play this tedious word-gaming with you, where you read what I write uncharitably, then proclaim victory due to that reinterpretation. Why, if I were a subject expert, would I want to go through this time after time, for everything? And of course the next step is to proclaim I'm wrong because I just want to be taken on faith, rather than not spending endless hours debating about it with some random person who might be getting their kicks from giving a subject expert a hard time. Again, I don't care about this exchange in specific, it's trivial in itself. But the pattern is just so glaringly obvious. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't read what you wrote uncharitably, you made an unsupported assertion with which I disagreed. As I do with your unsubtle critique. But disagreement is not something to abide, I take it. OK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. I suppose I should do one more round for the record. My view is that you are tendentiously missing my point. I understand your view is (my phrasing) that you're showing me up. I suppose we'll have to leave any faction to see it as they will. Again, I think it's illustrative in miniature. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No. I was not. (And since you used such terms, I now felt the need to register this denial.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Presumably Roth and Blake Bailey thought that they were doing a favour by pointing out the incorrect information and did not expect someone to dig up reasons to keep the false information in once the problem was pointed out. Bailey has won or been nominated for a number of major awards for his biographies. When his book comes out it will become one of the most reliable sources on Roth and it will indicate (possibly by ommission) that Broyard was not the inspiration for the character. Bailey could have just got on with his paid writing but instead he offered his expertise to us for free and was rebuffed.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The information is not false and it was never false. The information was an opinion of the critics and it was presented as their opinion, followed by Roth's statement that he had a different inspiration. That doesn't change the fact that it was an opinion of the critics, a widely held opinion, and should be discussed in the article. SilverserenC 00:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, by design, at Wikipedia no one is really "in charge", it means that nothing can be altered by any authority, no matter right, wrong, or indifferent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This story shows how corrupt Wikipedia is. 109.157.85.16 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat: saying that the information "is not false" because we repeated someone's false statement, but it is true that they made the false statement, is Wikilawyering. If we repeat false statements in a way which makes people believe them, then we have published false material in the only sense that matters, regardless of any technicalities about how we're just reporting someone else's falsehood. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
They were not false statements, they were informed speculation by reputable critics that turned out to be mistaken. But the reception of the novel by prominent critics is still notable even if it turns out they were mistaken. It is not wikilawyering. Roth pours scorn on it and considers it "gossip," but authors are often hostile to their critics, especially ones who read their work in the context of the author's personal life. You are essentially saying no one can ever mention the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline because now we know that Truman actually won, so why repeat a false statement.Sylvain1972 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"Mistaken" implies "false", so you're saying that they were not false statements, they were just false statements.
And it's Wikilawyering because you're going by an excessively literal interpretation of what it means to make a false statement. "Wikipedia didn't make false statements because the statements were coming from someone else and Wikipedia just reported them" ignores that the statements had pretty much the same effect as if Wikipedia made them: people read the article and believed they were true. Wikipedia is responsible for this, and can't escape responsibility by resorting to technicalities about how they weren't really false statements. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm tired of the indenting, I'll agree with Seth Finkelstein down here. :-) In theory, WP-newbie experts *should* get a hero's welcome, or at least not be bitten, per guidelines about that sort of thing. In practice, the combination of editors with chips on their shoulders and other failings, plus the steady stream of vandals and experts-in-their-own-minds, generates all kinds of miniature blowups daily, and periodically one is big enough to be noticed by the outside world. I don't think anybody has good ideas about how to fix beyond what we have already, not least because no other online community project even comes close to WP's scale. Stan (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A publication -- Wikipedia -- that is organized around the idea that there is no such thing as truth or fact, bur rather only the "verification" that something was published somewhere else by an entity of a type that a consensus of "editors" here approves of, is fundamentally and utterly incapable of rendering any credible or useful judgment of whether anything in its pages is "false." Wikipedia is a house of cards. As soon as any question arises over the "truth" of information here, you are, by your nature, completely at sea. All the rules and "Wikilawyering" in the world can't cover that up. Moynihanian (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Human_Stain/Archive_1&oldid=1144945154"