Talk:M. A. R. Barker

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy around Holocaust Denial

Hi, I'm sure that whatever I might contribute wouldn't be up to editorial standards (not a writer). But it has recently come to light that Professor Barker penned a neo-nazi novel (Serpent's Walk) under a pseudonym that was published in 1991 by National Vanguard Books, who also published infamous neo-nazi book, The Turner Diaries. This has been confimed by a former archivist and also the current President of the Tekumel Foundation. In addition, it appears as though a "Philip Barker, Ph.D." from Minneapolis sat on the editorial board of the Holocaust denial publication, The Journal for Historical Review. This is a breaking story, but once the dust settles, it's probably worthy of inclusion. AkkiTheJagged (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Journal of Historical Review, I think the statements at this time should be restrained, per no original research. It appear likely this will be established factually in due time but sourcing is important. Pawsplay (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Barker's literary executors confirmed his involvement with JIH, so I think this question is settled now. JoeNotCharles (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is technically correct to call the Tekumel Foundation Barker's literary executors. They are (as I understand it; I know one board member) primarily concerned with safeguarding the gaming system he set up, and have no financial interest in or control of his intellectual property. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s purpose and activities are concerned with the Tékumel setting and related products. According to their website: ”The mission of the Tékumel Foundation is to preserve and promote the World of Tekumel as the creative legacy of Prof. Barker. The Foundation was formed in 2008, and works to protect the literary works and all related products and activities surrounding the World of Tékumel and the Empire of the Petal Throne.”[1] In practice, I think the Foundation has been mainly doing two things: releasing Barker’s unpublished stuff and re-releasing old Tékumel products, and licensing Tékumel. It is my impression that the Foundation has been a subject of controversy for some time already, as their licensing policies have been somewhat erratic or at least opaque, and several potentially interesting Tékumel products have been cancelled as a result. Shannon Appelcline writes about the subject here. However, I don’t think the gaming systems devised by Barker are a particular focus for the Foundation; the world of Tékumel is. --Miihkali (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a handful of academic papers dealing with the Serpent’s Walk. Elana Gomel opined in 2000 that the novel has more literary pretensions than the Turner Diaries, but is nonetheless littered with the clichés of plague dystopias. She also notes that the basic narrative of the novel (Jerusalem scientists have created a genetically manipulated virus that is accidentally set free and kills all the undesirables) is obviously inspired by Mein Kampf, which repeatedly compares Jews to bacteria and the like. Mein Kampf is also extensively quoted in the Serpent’s Walk, and, by the end of the story, the protagonist has become the Führer of the Fourth Reich that encompasses the whole world.[2] Amina Inloes mentioned a pseudonymous Barker novel in 2018: ”Discussing this novel posed an ethical dilemma. The work is clearly Barker’s – not only does his share his writing style and interests, but it is published in the name of one of his ancestors. (It is also attributed to him in at least one library catalogue.) [...] This novel has actually been discussed more extensively in academic literature than his Tekumel novels, and, in my view, the writing is superior. However, the novel explores potentially inflammatory political viewpoints, and it was impressed upon me that it was best to preserve the facade of anonymity. I thus will leave it to the interested reader to dig it up”.[3] --Miihkali (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the RPG.net thread (which mostly just links to a Reddit thread, plus includes some other commentary from one of Barker's associates) particularly useful here? It seems tied to the name of his ancestor, which is separately confirmed by his genealogy. This doesn't seem like an appropriate source, unlike the other authoritative sources cited in this section. Kyle Maxwell (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not an appropriate source at all. This might be a more fitting source, as it is an edited piece with a single author (Shannon Appelcline) who has professionally published several role-playing books and is something of a specialist when it comes to the history of old-school role-playing games (see Designers & Dragons). And as I said, Amina Inloes confirms in her 2018 paper that a ”potentially inflammatory” novel was published under a pen name inspired by one of Barker’s ancestors (p. 393). --Miihkali (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Would it be worth noting that some of Barker's acquaintance (including the archivist who uncovered the material in the first place and brought it to the attention of the Tekumel Foundation, who was also a corespondent with Amina Inloes for her paper) have expressed the belief that the book was most likely written as some sort of hoax or insensitive joke, rather than a reflection of his genuine beliefs? Unfortunately I can't find any better source than their personal websites. (Dave Morris' statement is here which mentions and links Jeff Berry's). 2001:4650:8170:0:10F1:53D1:C3E9:A4BC (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That isn't a reliable secondary source, so no. I think it's also too far-fetched to be worth mentioning, and including it would be putting undue weight on the idea. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering we are talking about the person who has seen the personal documents related to the book and is used as the source for everything else (including Inloes' article) and an author that is at-least notable enough to have his own article here and corresponded with Barker about the book prior to it's publication I feel their opinions has some weight (as well as obvious bias) that might be worth mentioning, but if there are no usable sources there are no usable sources. 2001:4650:8170:0:10F1:53D1:C3E9:A4BC (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)