James Robert Baker is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 18, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 29, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 31, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted July 2, 2022 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 5, 2018, November 5, 2023, and November 5, 2024. Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived. LGBTQ+ studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force. Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism   Anarchism WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · history · talk · purge Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help? Did you know 19 Nov 2024 – Anarchism without adjectives (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion Articles for deletion 13 Dec 2024 – Postcolonial anarchism (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion (4 participants) Good article nominees 09 Dec 2024 – Liceu bombing (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); start discussion 04 Dec 2024 – Los Solidarios (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); start discussion 28 Nov 2024 – Alt Llobregat insurrection (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); start discussion Peer reviews 26 Oct 2024 – Lucy Parsons (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Mujinga (t · c); see discussion Requested moves 05 Dec 2024 – 1999 Seattle WTO protests (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Battle of Seattle by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion 02 Dec 2024 – Sole (hip hop artist) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Sole (hip-hop artist) by SilverLocust (t · c) was moved to Sole (hip-hop artist) (talk · edit · hist); see discussion Articles for creation 13 Dec 2024 – Draft:José de Molina (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MexicanSoda (t · c) 08 Dec 2024 – Draft:The Subversion of Christianity (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Aristoxène (t · c) was accepted to The Subversion of Christianity (talk · edit · hist) by Bkissin (t · c) on 09 Dec 2024 Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (514) California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've put this article's nomination on hold. Several issues:

• The lead is not long enough. This is one of the criteria for a good article (1 (b)).
• The external links are not in a standard format. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) (1 (c)).
• Also, the article is just one long biography (failing 1 (b)). Could you include a legacy section for example? I'm sure there's some discussion of his legacy in the biography section already.
• The infobox could have more information. What was his magnum opus?

I've put the article on hold, so alert me when you feel the changes suggested have been made and I'll rereview. CloudNine 16:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments, CloudNine. I actually *shortened* the lead, because the auto suggestions said it was too long. I will do what I can to lengthen it without repeating the info in the body.

• As to his Magnum Opus, I had that listed in the info box, but there is some controversy about using that section of the box now, and someone deleted it (see the history for more info).

• I can rework the last part of the bio into a "legacy section", if you feel that is necessary to "wikify" the article.Jeffpw 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the lead *should* be repeating the info in the body of the article; it should represent a short summary of the article's content. See WP:LEAD. MLilburne 16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It reads a lot better now. However, the lead section I feel should have another paragraph describing his legacy (which is a fairly large section), and you need to add fair use rationale for the picture. Other than that, it's a good good article.

A tip for improvement is to include a picture of one of his books in the biography, if only to make the text easier to read (with some criticism of the book to justify fair use of course). Just a suggestion. CloudNine 17:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've passed it as a good article. One more tip, for the book images, use a caption like so: [[Book name]] (year) - it makes it easier to quickly figure out what the image is about. Also, fair use rationale is needed on all those images. Look at other author articles (Douglas Adams perhaps?) for more tips. I tend to look at FAs when writing new content - they're a great help (for example, I got tips from Pink Floyd while writing Pixies). CloudNine 19:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the controversy section in the Biography section? It's not biographical, and would make much more sense as a seperate section. CloudNine 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The controversy (as I see it) *is* biographical, in that it is what led to his publishing difficulties. As it is now ordered, it goes from his screenwriting and first book (writer)to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th (controversy), to his difficulties and suicide (death). It has a natural progression. To put controversy after Legacy would (IMO) lead to confusion on the reader's part as to why he committed suicide. Jeffpw 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article follows a logical order at the moment, and that to move the controversy section would be confusing. One partial solution might be to simply remove the overarching "biography" heading, and simply have the headings run "early life," "writer," "controversy," "death," "legacy". MLilburne 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a simple fix, MLilburne! It's done now, and I think it eliminates any confusion that might possibly have arisen. Thanks for a creative solution. Jeffpw 20:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get a chance to review this article when it was at FAC: many (most) of the references are inadequate. It should be easy to clean these up so the article won't require a Featured article review.. Here are some examples:

• (specify this site in the references, with a consistent bibliographic style - I see it is listed as an External link, which isn't where it belongs if it was used as a source) Robertson's official Baker website
  • DONE
• (This article needs a title or an author - is Roy Riverburg the author or the name of the article - one or the other is missing.) Roy Rivenburg, Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1993; Page E-1,
  • DONE
• (This article has no title, how is a reader supposed to find it without knowing the name of the article?) New York Times, November 24, 1997; Section B; Page 7; Column 2
  • DONE
• (Ditto - no name for the article here.) L.A. Times, November 15, 1997, page A-20
  • DONE
• (This doesn't include author, title, publication date, etc.) L.A. Times, November 15, 1997, page A-20
  • DONE
• These are not full sources - readers need to know author, publication dated, and article title - a reader has no means of locating the articles:
  • Daily Variety, December 11, 1997.
    • DONE
  • New York Times, September 4, 1988
    • DONE
  • Press release of clippings from Baker's agent
    • DONE
  • Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1993, Monday, Home Edition, View; Part E; Page 2; Column 1
    • This one is just letters to the editor--should I type "letters section"?
      • Under author - but that raises a problem of reliable sources, as letters to the editor can be considered "self published" - double check what you were referencing with that, and see if it needs a better source. Sandy (Talk) 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: What I was referencing with that was the public reaction, specifically the letters to the editor. I cited that as an example. Jeffpw 05:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so on: I could keep going, but there is just about not a single reference which satisfies WP:V. Sources must be verifiable. Please work on these so the article won't need to be reviewed at WP:FAR. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, a lot of these are coming out wrong because you're using cite web for news sources - for those, you need to use cite news. I hate the cite templates anyway: I just manually type out the info, since the cite templates often mess up formatting. On the ones I'm correcting, I'm just entering the info manually - you may find that easier. Sandy (Talk) 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doublecheck this one: it does not point to the title that was previously indicated. Sandy (Talk) 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this in the Chronicle archives - is the title correct? Up-Front or Undercover?; Dan Levy, The San Francisco Chronicle, June 20, 1993; Section: Sunday Review; Pg. 9 Sandy (Talk) 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is correct, according to my files. I got it on a LexisNexis search. The San Francisco Chronicle

JUNE 20, 1993, SUNDAY, SUNDAY EDITION

Up-Front or Undercover?

BYLINE: REVIEWED BY, DAN LEVY

SECTION: SUNDAY REVIEW; Pg. 9; GAY/LESBIAN BOOKS

LENGTH: 711 words

• If you open the link to the article you think is improperly titled, and the look at the top of your browser window, you'll see the original title as I had referenced it"James Robert Baker: The Last Angry Gay Man?". I don't know why the article itself has a different title--I never even noticed it, to be honest. Jeffpw 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ah, I see - in that case, I'm not sure which to use ? One is the title of the webpage, the other is supposedly the actual article. Sandy (Talk) 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name of the site (a sub-site, actually) Is The Last Angry Gay Man. The article title is as you referenced it. Please let me know if there is any more that needs to be done. I have got to go to sleep now. It's after midnight and I have to be up at 5am for work. Jeffpw 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• One last thing: I can't get ref #24 to format correctly. I will try to get it done properly tomorrow. Right now it is clickable, but looks a hash. Jeffpw 23:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll finish up, and leave a note here of anything remaining. Get some zzzz. Sandy (Talk) 23:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Still missing - Daily Variety, December 11, 1997.
  • DONE
• Not sure what this is - If it's a book, it needs a publisher; if it's a magazine, it needs an article title. Pegrum, Mark. Mots pluriels; Vol.1. no 3. 1997
  • DONE

Much better now, but this should not have passed FA in the condition it was in before. I'm also not thrilled with the quality of some of the sources, but I was traveling when it was at FAC, and didn't review. If you can improve the sources (removing self-published and tabloid sources where possible and adding more sources like LA Times and NY Times), it would be good. Sandy (Talk) 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what you mean by tabloid sources. Can you give an example? I didn't knowingly use any tabloids as references. As to self published, the TrashFiction website is from an established British writer with several books to his name. Christian Suave is also a published author who reviews cinema and books for Solaris (magazine). The axiongrafix.com site, though self-published, is an interview with Baker himself. Thus I assume (though I cannot prove) that it was originally published elsewhere. The problem I had is that Baker is a minor writer who died 10 years ago. Very little information is available--I had to pay to get most of the articles I found, as they were not freely available on the internet or at the library here in Amsterdam. I would love to have had better sources, but ultimately I had to work with what I could find. In any event, thank you very much for your help last night. I was working several hours on this, and I could see you working along side me the whole time....and longer. It is appreciated more than you could know. Jeffpw 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good - I just noticed when I was running through the refs, that Wiki says (for example) that the Herald Sun is a tabloid. Anyway, it looks MUCH better now ! I'm unwatching this now, so ping me if you need any help in the future. Sandy (Talk) 23:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, the term tabloid in relation to this paper has more to do with the format than the content, since it is a merging of a conservative morning tabloid newspaper with an afternoon broadsheet. I have never read the paper myself (except for the one article I used for research here), but their website says it's Australia's largest selling newspaper. Jeffpw 11:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article leaves one wondering. It should explore deeper into why he commited suicide, especially considering that suicide seem to be tragically prevalent among gays(discrimination?). People don't commit suicide 'just' like that, there must be more to it. 87.59.77.188 (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is he hung himself in his garage. His boyfriend found him there returning from work one night. 98.148.143.5 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some to and fro with respect to choice of term on this matter. Do we have any sources that support either version? __meco (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times uses "partner" in it's obit [1] which lends weight to life partner. Boyfriend seems less committed and more casual. — Becksguy (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and we wouldn't want to make someone into something more committing if they weren't that. __meco (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we don't, as that would be OR. I haven't found the exact phrase "life partner" used about their relationship yet that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. However, here's what I did find:

• He is survived by his companion, Ron Robertson, and a brother, Douglas, of Long Beach, Calif. — NY Times obit. [2]
• Brought up in Long Beach, Baker is survived by a brother, Douglas, and his partner, Ron Robertson. — LA Times obit. [3]
• Baker is survived by a brother and his lifetime partner, Ron Robertson. — Variety obit [4]
• Scott Brassert did some minor editing with participation of Baker’s long-time companion, Ron Robertson. — From Suite101

There is no source supporting the boyfriend phrase as shown in the search term and all the sources make it clear that they were more than boyfriends. Boyfriend is out of consideration. "Partner" by it's self could be a business partner, although maybe not in this context. Robertson is also Baker's literary executor. I have no idea where "life partner" came from. I suggest we change the article to read "lifetime partner" with the Variety citation. That hopefully should end the edit war as it will be sourced. — Becksguy (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest longtime partner or longtime companion. The use of the term lifetime on male-male relationships would require an explicit statement of intent for younger couples, I'd say. Only where there's a fait accompli, i.e. when the relationship had in fact lasted a lifetime, I would find the use of this term justifiable without the partners themselves explicitly using of that label. __meco (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support life-partner as they couldn't have been married. longtime companion is more archaic. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "lifetime partner" is a direct quote from a reliable source. Life partner isn't. We are talking about the moral equivalent of a common law marriage here. Baker died while in this relationship. "Longtime companion" is the term that was used in obits from, as an example, the NY Times, as code for a gay relationship before it became respectable to acknowledge such relationships. As well as being a movie title. — Becksguy (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then lifetime partner (perhaps wikilinked to life partner) seems reasonable. -- Banjeboi 16:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused by the term "Long-time partner" since my understanding is they only dated 2 years; lived together one year. 98.148.143.5 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We really shouldn't have a "controversy" section. It denotes poor and POV writing. Instead content should be merged, reworked or removed as appropriate to remain NPOV. -- Banjeboi 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're aware that Jeffpw is deceased and can't improve the article. I rather doubt that he intended POV, but he certainly can't fix it now. Would it trouble you to just merge the text as you wish, rather than tagging the article? Nonetheless, controversy and criticism sections are quite common in articles that have to deal with critical reception (artists, writers, etc.); perhaps you could rename the section to that and rework it accordingly. On the other hand, you could just take it to FAR and have Jeff's work defeatured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all too aware of jeff's passing and was thinking of him earlier today but signed on anyway. I had no idea this was his creation and also have no interest in deflating its quality or rating. We should probably look to renaming and moving content. Controversy sections are going the way of trivia sections - they are tolerated but are considered a sign of a section in need of redecorating. -- Banjeboi 01:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "Critical reception" is more in line with the current trend for handling "criticism" of artists, authors and their works. I don't feel comfortable reworking Jeff's article although I did access some of the sources a few days ago to do some cleanup; if you do feel comfortable about it, perhaps you'll give it a go? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My plate over-floweth although I'm happy to help if pinged or prodded. I'm a good week or so behind on my vandalism watchlist. -- Banjeboi 16:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Robert Baker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041211003240/http://www.planetout.com:80/entertainment/books/reviews/baker.html to http://www.planetout.com/entertainment/books/reviews/baker.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeffpw (now deceased) created this article with Baker's birth year listed as 1947, then he quickly changed it to 1946 here but kept Category:1947 births, all without citing a source. According to the cited obituaries from NY Times, LA Times, and Variety, Baker died at age 50, which is consistent with a birthdate of October 18, 1947, not October 18, 1946. Does anyone know for sure, with a WP:Reliable Source, so we can fix the inconsistencies? —Patrug (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some spots where this older FA promotion no longer meets the featured article criteria.

• I don't think Blues for Peace is high-quality RS
• We should not be using an Amazon author page in a FA
• Date of birth is never directly cited anywhere
• Awfulagent appears to possibly be regurgitated press releases (it reads like the back cover of a book), and the citation suggests this as well. Should we be citing this? Does this violate WP:COPYLINK?
• What makes knittingcircle high-quality RS?
• "By 2006, first editions of Adrenaline, Boy Wonder, Fuel-Injected Dreams and Tim and Pete had become collector's items and commanded high prices at rare book store" - we should not be citing an alibris page for this
• "Though Tim and Pete was his most controversial work, Boy Wonder is generally considered his magnum opus, and remains his most popular book" - sourced to a webpage of dubious reliability, and then a selected reading list from what appears to be Christian McLaughlin; we can and should do better for sourcing here
• What makes trashfiction.co high-quality RS?

Improvements will be needed here, or WP:FAR may be necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]