Talk:Nadine Gordimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] dead links

can someone get the links in the fiction section working and the pages to atualy be made. fwed66 17:33(GMT) 5 june 2006

[edit] Nadine Gordimer's Ancestry

The current wording is intended to imply that Gordimer's mother was not Jewish, which is untrue. It is furthermore untrue that she was "raised a Christian," as the article currently states. On page 33 of "No Cold Kitchen: A Biography of Nadine Gordimer," Ronald Suresh Roberts writes "Gordimer's mother was named Nan (her real name was Hannah, née Myers). Her father went by Isidore Gordimer... Isidore and Nan were both products of the large Jewish migration to South Africa in the last decades of the nineteenth century (he from the Eastern European Pale, she from London)." Much of the chapter entitled "Wellsprings: Ancestry" deals with the Jewish backgrounds of both sides of Nadine Gordimer's family. She and her sister did attend a Catholic parochial school, where "Nadine and Betty were the only Jews" (Roberts, page 47), but she is not a Christian. In an article on Gordimer in "Jewish Writers of the Twentieth Century," Marcia Leveson quotes Gordimer as saying "I have never denied that I'm Jewish and have no desire to deny it. For me, being Jewish is like being black: you simply are. To want to deny it is simply disgusting." Jinfo 06:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack on Nadine Gordimer & attackers' race

"She was robbed on 26 October 2006 by three men in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, and was assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring. [1] She has been adamant in stating however that this attack will not alter her previously expressed beliefs about the ills of apartheid." What the . . . Why would it alter her beliefs about apartheid? This doesn't belong in this article, any way, shape, or form. I'm taking the whole thing out. It's horrible to hear that she was attacked, but this is not encyclopedia information. Whatever is being implied in the back and forth, putting in the word "black" men and taking it back out and then, apparently, someone thought they could justify the inclusion of this information with relevance to her political views!! -It's preposterous and offensive.DianaW 04:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who removed this material both on the 18th and again last night. I didn't mean to do it anonymously, I guess I forgot to log in. The person who added this material yesterday did so without discussion. It had already been disputed here. I felt that since I was the last person to comment on this issue and no one had disputed my take on this, my sense that it should not be included here should stand until or unless someone comes along who'd actually care to discuss it. Examining the other wikipedia contributions of the person who inserted this material yesterday gave me a very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly. If someone wants to make a case for the inclusion of reports of this attack in this article - and has a suggestion for how such reports can be made to read neutrally without extremely ugly racial overtones, please feel free.DianaW 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor, I would like to hear your views on why this material needs to be included here. The way wikipedia works, you need to discuss controversial changes with other editors; not just repeatedly and without discussion insert things that have been previously removed. Please either discuss your changes or expect to see me remove them again. There needs to be a justification for including something that, as phrased, has very unsavory implications. Could you, for instance, state why you believe this incident, along with irrelevant comments about the race of certain individuals, needs to be included in an encyclopedia article on Nadine Gordimer?DianaW 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Lquilter. You must have done that just moments ago. I'm relieved not to be the only one watching this page who sees it this way.DianaW 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right -- this material is not particularly notable, and is written in an obvious POV manner to try to make a subtle racist claim. --LQ 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


In what follows, I am referring to the viciously worded entry DianaW 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC), not to the same individual’s entry at 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC), in which she uses much different language, in seeking to present herself as the soul of reason and tolerance. That ship has sailed.

“The person who added this material yesterday did so without discussion.” You mean, I did so without seeking your permission. Who died, and made you censor-in-chief?

“I felt that since I was the last person to comment on this issue and no one had disputed my take on this, my sense that it should not be included here should stand until or unless someone comes along who'd actually care to discuss it.”

Consider yourself disputed. You don’t discuss, you censor (and only eight minutes after I restored the passage you’d previously censored! Is that some kind of Wikirecord?), plus you throw political epithets around, couched in cowardly pc-wikispeak (“very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly.”), in order to smear those who refuse to toe your political line, and to intimidate anyone else who might disagree with you. In a textbook ad hominem attack, you insinuated that I am a racist, and that all readers should treat anything I say with contempt.

Indeed, to borrow from Mary McCarthy, every word in your preceding entry passage violated the Wiki: Talk guidelines, including “and” and "the.” Were I to follow the same guidelines, I could not possibly respond to you. But then, I have previously complained about Wikipedia guidelines that only seem to exist to silence certain people, and to give dictatorial powers to others.

Nowhere did you show anything that was wrong with my restoration of the passage you had wrongfully censored, or with the quote that I had added, as per Wikipedia guidelines, and which came from the same source – a reporter in the London Sunday Times – as the section you had censored. Is the LST insufficiently pc for you?

(I am now writing for the sake of other Wikipedia readers, not the censor, who appears to be a lost cause).

The piece that I restored (I had not originally written it) and supplemented with a quote, was a factual report of a robbery last month of Ms. Gordimer by three black men. Since by the time you read this, the censor will no doubt have stricken it yet again from the article proper, the entire passage follows:

“She was robbed on 26 October 2006 by three black men in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, and was assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring. The (London) Sunday Times’ Durban correspondent, R.W. Johnson observed, ‘There is a grim irony to the attack, for Gordimer’s novels are all focused on the inhumanities of apartheid — with blacks always the victims, not, as in this case, the perpetrators.’ [1]”

The first sentence was the original passage, previous to the censor doing what she does; I added the rest. I followed Wikipedia guidelines; the censor had violated them, and has done so anew.

I added no “POV”; I added only facts, facts which the censor seeks to suppress. Does she seek to suppress the facts about Nadine Gordimer’s years-long criticism of white-dominated apartheid? Not at all. Why not, then? The censor has repeatedly suppressed the facts about a dramatic incident in Gordimer’s life, an incident that also is pregnant with irony (censors never take their irony supplement). That is because of her POV, which is racist.

There, I’ve said it. Unlike the censor, I don’t trade in cowardly insinuations. Or in censorship, for that matter.

As far as the censor is concerned, one may condemn white people all day long – that does not count as a “POV” – but let someone report anything about black people behaving badly, and that counts as a “POV” (i.e., that one is a racist). But the truth can never be racist. The censor seems to hate whites, and imposes her hatred on articles by promoting the casting of whites in the worst light possible, while suppressing, based on race alone, any factual reporting (forget about opinion) that casts blacks as anything but the victims of whites. If that isn’t racist, I don’t know what is.

The censor claimed she wanted a “discussion.” But she did not wait on any discussion, before censoring the earlier passage (which I restored and which she again censored). She believes that she may take initiatives, while others who disagree with her must wait for her permission ... which she will never grant!

That’s beyond even a sense of entitlement.

And how would one go about discussing the passage in question with her? Rather than show how the passage that I restored plus the quote I added was somehow guilty of “POV,” she made a blanket insinuation that I am a racist (“very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly”) regarding my OTHER “wikipedia contributions.” Thus, not only did she not discuss the passage she censored, but she sought to inflame all readers against me, and pre-emptively intimidate any who might contradict her, by insinuating that they too, must be racists. And she sought thereby to distract everyone from the fact that I wasn’t even the person who had written the original passage. (Is she now going to look up that person’s entries, and insinuate that he is a racist, too?)

I'm talking about something very ugly.

My understanding is that the censor is violating Wikipedia guidelines, by suppressing facts in the name of her racial politics (i.e., POV). I am not suppressing any facts; indeed, I would never dream of butchering an article for any reason.

As for what the censor could possibly have read from me, I have recently complained once or twice about a racist double-standard that is being promoted at Wikipedia by people who beat others over the head with the demand that they maintain a “NPOV,” while the former promote a radical POV. Specifically, the demand for a “NPOV” is used to bully whites, while racist blacks violate said rule with impunity. Thus, there really is no “NPOV” rule; rather, the “rule” is just a racist propaganda weapon. And along comes the censor, to corroborate my complaint!

Since I am fairly confident that the censor is white, I need to amend what I previously said: racist whites (in this case, whites who hate other whites based on the color of the latter’s skin; the former often refer to themselves variously as “anti-racists” or “race traitors”; you can’t make this stuff up) also violate the NPOV “rule” with abandon, while beating other whites (or those whom they believe to be white) over the head with it.

As far as I can see, the only “discussion” the censor would recognize would be the sound of her allies agreeing with her, and the silence of the graveyard, in place of her opponents’ voices.

Should the censor’s allies also censor this entry, I will at least have contradicted them, without being guilty of self-censorship or dissimulation. 70.23.177.216 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"you insinuated that I am a racist," If you feel that was too subtle and that I was "insinuating" something I am happy to come out clearer for you then. There is no possible reason to add this material here that is not racist. Your post is extraordinary, mr./ms. anonymous 70.23 etc. This is sickening. Sickening. You obviously make it your business to go around adding this kind of crap. I bet you've never read a word of Nadine Gordimer.DianaW 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The material should be, and has been, deleted again. I agree with User:DianaW. This material is non-notable information about Gordimer's life. User:70.23.177.216, it is incumbent on you to advance some rationale for this material. For instance, did it affect Gordimer's politics or her writing -- the reason she herself is notable? Was it a race-based incident, targeting Gordimer because of her views on race, or her race? I see nothing in the information you've cited to suggest that. Without any notability on its own, the incident is simply out of place, because one doesn't typically include this kind of material in an article. I don't recall ever having seen "X was mugged" or "Y was robbed at gunpoint" when those incidents had no effect on the ways in which X or Y are notable.
Moreover, the race of the perpetrators in a criminal incident would ordinarily not be notable unless there was a specific racial basis for the incident, or some specific racial effect of the incident. You quote the "irony" quote but that does not itself give relevance. "Irony" is a POV comment by the newspaper, making an observation that is much like the one you're making here. Quoting a POV comment is still a POV. --LQ 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for laying that out clearly. I merely reacted. There's obviously no way anyone can justify adding this. I would just add that wikipedia is also not the eleven o'clock local news; it shouldn't include breaking news about fires and disasters. Even if this event did turn out to be significant in Gordimer's life, its significance would not be visible six weeks later (or a few days later, which was when the material was first added here). Any event that might affect her work or affect her politics could eventually turn out to have been notable and need to be included in a summary of her life; but if you want to see how or if it affects her politics or affects her writing, you'll have to wait to see what she writes next or does next.
I also agree that "irony" was a POV comment by the newspaper, I'd go further and say a racist comment. I read the full article and the quote was completely inappropriate; it was editorializing. There is no "irony" in the color of the skin of either the victim or perpetrators of a random crime. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that somehow the writer of the Times piece believed - or believed that Gordimer believed - that because Gordimer was an opponent of apartheid that she ought to have been immune to some random attack in her home by black people. Was the Times writer trying to suggest that if Gordimer had been attacked by white people, the incident wouldn't have been so interesting or notable? Or trying to suggest that, heck, why did she bother protesting apartheid for so many decades when, look at this, it didn't end up preventing her getting attacked by black people? As if that was why she had done it, or that she would have such an expectation. Ain't life ironic. Or something like that. The reporter's comment was either stupid or racist. Neither "breaking news" about fires, rapes, muggings etc. - even when it happens in the lives of famous people - belongs here, nor, by the same token, do off-the-cuff instant reactions by reporters at the news outlets. Neither the incident nor the reporter's comment about "irony" are notable in terms of encyclopedia content. The only reason to present it here *at all* is to push an agenda; our racist POV pusher is correct in suggesting there's probably no argument that would convince me there's any reason to report it here.DianaW 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


The Army-DianaW Hearings

Diana I

“I'm the person who removed this material both on the 18th and again last night. I didn't mean to do it anonymously, I guess I forgot to log in. The person who added this material yesterday did so without discussion. It had already been disputed here. I felt that since I was the last person to comment on this issue and no one had disputed my take on this, my sense that it should not be included here should stand until or unless someone comes along who'd actually care to discuss it. Examining the other wikipedia contributions of the person who inserted this material yesterday gave me a very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly. If someone wants to make a case for the inclusion of reports of this attack in this article - and has a suggestion for how such reports can be made to read neutrally without extremely ugly racial overtones, please feel free.DianaW 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)”

(Summary: ‘One must discuss adding this material with me … but only a racist would want to add it.’)

Diana II

“Dear anonymous editor, I would like to hear your views on why this material needs to be included here. The way wikipedia works, you need to discuss controversial changes with other editors; not just repeatedly and without discussion insert things that have been previously removed. Please either discuss your changes or expect to see me remove them again. There needs to be a justification for including something that, as phrased, has very unsavory implications. Could you, for instance, state why you believe this incident, along with irrelevant comments about the race of certain individuals, needs to be included in an encyclopedia article on Nadine Gordimer?DianaW 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)”

(Summary: ‘I am an open-minded, tolerant person; please contact me to explain why you seek to add this material.’)

Diana III

“‘you insinuated that I am a racist,’ If you feel that was too subtle and that I was ‘insinuating’ something I am happy to come out clearer for you then. There is no possible reason to add this material here that is not racist. Your post is extraordinary, mr./ms. anonymous 70.23 etc. This is sickening. Sickening. You obviously make it your business to go around adding this kind of crap. I bet you've never read a word of Nadine Gordimer.DianaW 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)”

(Summary: ‘There is nothing to discuss, and only a sickening racist would seek to add this material.’)

Diana IV

“… The reporter's comment was either stupid or racist. Neither "breaking news" about fires, rapes, muggings etc. - even when it happens in the lives of famous people - belongs here, nor, by the same token, do off-the-cuff instant reactions by reporters at the news outlets. Neither the incident nor the reporter's comment about "irony" are notable in terms of encyclopedia content. The only reason to present it here *at all* is to push an agenda; our racist POV pusher is correct in suggesting there's probably no argument that would convince me there's any reason to report it here.DianaW 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(Summary: ‘I confess that I would never countenance any argument for including the material I cut. Only a racist would want to restore it.’) 70.23.177.216 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous continues, summarizing for me: ‘One must discuss adding this material with me … but only a racist would want to add it.’ Discuss an argument for adding it that *isn't* racist if you want to change my mind on this.
'I am an open-minded, tolerant person; please contact me to explain why you seek to add this material.’ Yes.
‘There is nothing to discuss, and only a sickening racist would seek to add this material.’ I don't know if only a sickening racist would seek to add this material. Suggest a *reason* for adding it and try me.
'I confess that I would never countenance any argument for including the material I cut. Only a racist would want to restore it.’ Only thing wrong with that summary is probably 'confess.' Again, however, you'd have to advance an argument that *isn't* racist before we'd find out if I would countenance it.DianaW 12:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stop the revert wars

This is really unproductive. User:70.23.177.216, I agree with User:DianaW that there is no good justification for putting this material in repeatedly. We've taken it out and justified the removal. You responded to User:DianaW with a long rambling diatribe that made a lot of assertions about Wikipedia generally, and was not responsive to the reasons this particular text should be in this particular article. You never responded to my points that (a) random criminal assaults on a notable person are not, themselves, notable; (b) the race of the perpetrators of even a notable criminal assault is not, itself, notable; and (c) commentary that race of perpetrators is "ironic" is just a perspective, a POV, and is not notable. It's also completely inappropriate for you to describe it as "reverting vandalism"; it is not vandalism for me to delete something, with justification. If you think this information is notable, then you need to rewrite it in such a way that it responds to our objections. You might consider, for example, adding more information about Nadine Gordimer's current life in England; classes she's taught; personal associates; and other information that is of comparable notability to a criminal assault. But just putting in one criminal assault, and no other information, falsely conveys the impression that this incident is more notable than many other things in her life. It is, in short, ascribing notability to the event solely because of the race. That view is well-captured by the "ironic" quote but it's patently assigning significance based on race. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Here are a few relevant policies: Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles (I haven't seen any controversy over this point other than here in this talk page, so I don't think you can rewrite it as a "controversy") and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute and Wikipedia:Describing points of view. I have zero interest in writing this and putting it in because I think it's completely uninteresting, non-notable, and a not-subtle attempt to push a racist POV. You think it's interesting, so you need to write it in such a way that it lives up to the standards of every peer editor who might see it. Right now it's not. You need to REWRITE, not continue putting in the same text. Characterizing your peer editors as pushing an anti-white POV is not addressing the problem.

If this continues, I'm going to call for some administrative or dispute resolution or whatever. --LQ 14:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a Request for Comment? Maybe we should give it another day or two to see if this person keeps it up. There really can't be any doubt that the event is not notable as encyclopedia content, even if there weren't this titillating detail for racists to glom onto about the fact that her attackers' skin color was different from hers. This anonymous user has ranted about so-called anti-white racism elsewhere on wikipedia but hasn't advanced any arguments at all on this talk page for the inclusion of the report of the attack in this article, for racial reasons or any other conceivable reason. He/she certainly doesn't dispute that the racial aspect is what interests him/her. (Incidentally, Nadine Gordimer lives in a suburb of Johannesburg. She was an anti-apartheid activist for decades. This is the "irony," I presume, that the anonymous user sees in her being attacked by black men.)DianaW 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, Wikipedia:Requests for comment looks like the right process - thanks, User:DianaW, I'm still digging around to learn all the various policies. If User:70.23.177.216 adds the material in again I'll do an RFC (or you can, or they can, or whatever). --LQ 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The rfc was posted, but User:70.23.177.216 has added the material back in twice since it was posted, neither time adding any explanation or making any changes that addressed earlier critiques of the material. Rather than engaging in a revert-war, I've added a heading and a NPOV dispute on the section. That does not mean I think the material is here legitimately. User:70.23.177.216 added it in, repeatedly, without changing it to address the fundamental critiques about perspective, and without ever proffering any reason why the incident itself is at all relevant. I've only left it in there (with a heading & POV dispute template) until we can get other evaluation besides the 3 of us. --LQ 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you post the Rfc, or did the anonymous poster do it?DianaW 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous poster posted the RFC here but not on the RFC page; I added it there. Still no response. I also looked into the RFC procedures for users and see that there need to be at least two attempts to resolve the conflict on the user's page before going that route. Since User:70.23.177.216 won't respond here to the substantive complaints I posted on the user's page. This is very frustrating. --LQ 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The described event does not appear to have had any significant impact on Ms Gordimer's life. Unless someone can show that it is of any relevance, my opinion is that it should be deleted. Sprotch 13:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (copied to the "outside comments" section since it appears to be in response to the RFC on this issue --LQ 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] RfC

In late October, various editors added the following section, with slight variations – with or without the adjective “black” attached to the noun “men,” and with or without reference to the assault and the wedding ring.

“She was robbed on 26 October 2006 by three black men in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, and was assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring.”

On November 30, while reading the Nadine Gordimer Wikipedia biography, User: 70.23.177.216 determined that the section had been deleted. User: 70.23.177.216 went to the footnoted source (The London Times) of the deleted section, read it, restored the deletion, and added a supporting quotation from the source.

"She was robbed on 26 October 2006 by three black men in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, and was assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring. The (London) Sunday Times’ Durban correspondent, R.W. Johnson observed, “There is a grim irony to the attack, for Gordimer’s novels are all focused on the inhumanities of apartheid — with blacks always the victims, not, as in this case, the perpetrators.” [2]"

An edit war ensued, with User: DianaW reverting the edit, and attacking User: 70.23.177.216 for being a “POV pusher.“

User: 70.23.177.216 again restored the deleted section, and responded in kind to User: DianaW.

User: LQ aka User: LQuilter has since said he agreed with User: DianaW, and charged User: 70.23.177.216 with having made a “subtle racist claim.”

The counter-deletions and counter-restorations have since continued apace. 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous writes today: "Preceding vandal/censor has previously admitted that there is no reason I could give that would change his mind." Again my response to this is: TRY ME. And incidentally, I'm not a "his" and I don't think LQuilter is either.
A good next step, for instance, if you hope to sway others who respond to the Request for Comment, would be to summarize your arguments for why this material should be included here. Nothing of this nature appears on this talk page from you, nor are there any replies to the reasons against it offered by LQuilter and myself.DianaW 12:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The User:70.23.177.216 added the material in again, after the RFCs filed, with no changes or commentary here or on talk page to address any critiques of the material's notability or NPOV. I'm pulling out my commentary so other users won't have to wade through the screens'-full of rambling rants above: You never responded to my points that (a) random criminal assaults on a notable person are not, themselves, notable; (b) the race of the perpetrators of even a notable criminal assault is not, itself, notable; and (c) commentary that race of perpetrators is "ironic" is just a perspective, a POV, and is not notable. Gordimer has stated that the race of the perpetrators does not affect her views on apartheid. There is no evidence that race was a motivating factor in the attacks. The perpetrators' race is not relevant. --LQ 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE entire paragraph and reference to the incident would be my recommendation. --LQ 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comments

  • The described event does not appear to have had any significant impact on Ms Gordimer's life. Unless someone can show that it is of any relevance, my opinion is that it should be deleted. Sprotch 13:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (copied from earlier section to here since it appears to be in response to RFC on this issue--LQ 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment: from what i can make out from the text of this article and the Times report, this incident is not particularly noteworthy to be included in this current "barebones" biography, the incident and one commentator's view is being given undue weight - in terms of the lengths of the text and the quote and with a section devoted to it. the press reports i cld find (Guardian,AP report on USA Today) don't even mention the race of the robbers, let alone attribute any significance to it. Doldrums 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the incident should be mentioned only if it had a major impact on her life (such as being hospitalised for more than a few days, etc.). Even if she incident was significant enough to be mentioned in this way, I think the reference to the attckers' race is very much out of place. It's undue weight. (Ask yourself: Would you be so inclined to mention the attackers' race if they were Black?) --Taxico 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at anonymous user's talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.23.177.216 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DianaW (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Note: I am moving the discussion to this page, since it is about the article. A discussion on a user talk page should be about behaviour - when it's a discussion about content, it needs to be in the article's talk page so that other editors can easily see it, per Wikipedia:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. John Broughton | Talk 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but it's largely redundant; I put it on the user_talk page per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#First_step:_Talk_to_the_other_parties_involved. Will try to think about how to talk about the dispute without the content ...? in the future. --LQ 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, John. I wasn't sure either - I thought maybe it needed to be at the User's page because this was required before an RFC could be done. But clearly it really belongs here. That's why I put the link in here. I wish someone else would comment! I have been looking around for other news commentary on the incident and it's interesting that the London Times was the only one to include the "grim irony" stuff - *or* any details on the perpetrators' race. If you read that article, it almost looks like the "grim irony" remark was the only way the writer could think of to get away with inserting information about the attackers' race. It's the same thing that was later done on this page; it reads as if "If I connect this event to her political views, that way I can mention race."
I submit that there are two criteria either one of which could make this a notable incident for including in wikipedia: 1) Find evidence that she was attacked because of who she is or because of her political views. Did they target her because she is a Nobel Prize winning author and anti-apartheid activist? or 2) Find evidence - and it is still too soon - that it has influenced her life or her work in any significant way. The evidence thus far is the contrary. She was apparently targeted because she is an old lady living alone in probably a very nice house, suggesting to potential robbers that she had things worth stealing. There is no suggestion the perpetrators knew who they were attacking. And her public reaction to the incident thus far has been to assert that the appropriate response to crime in South Africa is education and training. This, so far, does not mark a break with her long-held views. The event has had no more demonstrable significance in her life and work than would, say, being in a car accident.DianaW 14:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text to be included or not

User:70.23.177.216 - Regarding the Nadine Gordimer entry: You keep replacing the exact same text without responding to the substantive critiques about it. The critiques are: (1) The criminal assault itself is not notable and not in keeping with the rest of the entry. There's very little personal biography of Gordimer's on the page at all, and certainly nothing at the level of detail of the assault, other than the assault. The biography currently is basically a literary biography, not a personal life history. (2) There's no reason to include the race of the perpetrators unless the race is of independent significance -- as in, the perpetrators' or victim's race was a motivating factor as in a hate crime; or if the race had a specific make-up of the perpetrators had a specific effect on Gordimer. (And it didn't, as evidenced by her quote, elsewhere cited; but I'm not adding it in because the material is IRRELEVANT under point #1.) (3) The quote from the LST correspondent that the attack is "ironic" because Gordimer is anti-apartheid is simply commentary about the race; the commentary itself is not notable and being about the race makes it also irrelevant. Rather than continue to engage in a revert-war, I have listed this as a "RFC" and posted a "disputed neutrality" template to the material you keep re-posting. But you need to provide some justification that responds to these comments (and those of User:DianaW) and explains why this information is notable and relevant and not, as it appears to both of us, simply an attempt to bring up race in order to push a particular POV. --LQ 14:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear, dear User:DianaW and User:Lquilter,

Stop your lying and posturing. First of all, why would I replace what you vandalized at the Nadine Gordimer biography with different words? Besides which, if I had changed the wording, you would then have complained that I had "merely changed the wording"! Nothing but unconditional surrender will satisfy you ... and soon enough, you will discover that you are still dissatisfied, and renew the hunt for counter-revolutionaries!

Second of all, you did not make any substantive criticisms to my restorations of your vandalism. (Note to third-party readers: I had not originally written the section which these two have repeatedly vandalized. Rather, I happened to be reading Nadine Gordimer's bio the other day, discovered the censorship that DianaW had committed, was incensed at her presumptuousness, and resolved to make matters aright.)

I hate censors. They are cowards and bullies, who seek to dominate the world through, among other things, silencing people who say and write anything that conflicts with their ideological agenda.


Now I am addressing third-party readers. These two present themselves on my page as interested in scholarly debate, but are in fact posturing. As anyone who will read all of their entries on the Nadine Gordimer discussion page will see, they have engaged in vicious ad hominem attacks on me from the outset (and I have given as well as I have taken), and both eventually confessed that nothing I could say would possibly change their minds. Thus, they are engaging in a pathetic little ruse. They seek to present themselves (on my page, and in some of their entries on the Nadine Gordimer discussion page) -- in between personal attacks -- as disinterested scholars, requesting an "explanation" from me. I am then to labor for hours over an explanation, to which they will respond, as they planned to all along, 'I am sorry, but your response is irrelevant, guided by a POV, racist, etc.'

I am then to kill myself writing yet another rebuttal, which they will also reject. Only a moron or a masochist would waste his time writing explanations to such people. One might as well play a concert of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony at Gallaudet University.

Third, it is I who initiated the RfC, not DianaW, but what does the truth matter to her? (This is just her posturing again as the soul of reason, for the sake of visitors to my User Talk page who have not read her vicious ad hominem attacks.)

Fourth, there is no point in my justifying the paragraph in question, because I have already done so to the best of my abilities. Or rather, to the best of reporter R.W. Johnson's abilities. When I restored the originally one-sentence paragraph (the first sentence below), I added a second sentence including a quote from Johnson. Someone who is going to condemn the Johnson quote as "racist," and having a "POV" (that a legitimate source expresses a POV is not grounds, under Wikipedia rules, for a deletion), is not going to accept any rationale for the section.

"She was robbed on 26 October 2006 by three black men in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, and was assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring. The (London) Sunday Times’ Durban correspondent, R.W. Johnson observed, 'There is a grim irony to the attack, for Gordimer’s novels are all focused on the inhumanities of apartheid — with blacks always the victims, not, as in this case, the perpetrators.' [3]"

Note that the censors in question insist that this incident is "irrelevant" to a biographical article on a writer. If a 22-year-old were robbed and assaulted in her home, the violation would be considered a life-changing trauma. How much more so for a frail woman just one month shy of her 83rd birthday? And Wikipedia is not a literary encyclopedia limited to chronicling writers' artistic development, but purports to be a real encyclopedia offering biographical articles. Otherwise, why mention Gordimer's marriage. And according to the censors' statements, mentioning that Gordimer she had studied for one year at university, or that as a middle-aged woman she had taught at universities, is utterly "irrelevant." But the censors wish to cut out any reference to one of the biggest incidents in the subject's life, purely on grounds of their racist, radical leftwing ideology.

Following the censors' logic, had the robbers murdered Gordimer, the censors would have deleted all reference to the circumstances of her death, providing the reader only with the date of death.

The censors also say that the robber-attackers' race is "irrelevant." That's interesting, considering the London Times saw fit to report on the perpetrators' race. Since the censors have no power over the Times, they are trying to engage in coercion here ... and surely elsewhere.

In fact, many newspapers now do refrain from mentioning the races of criminals, if the latter are members of racial minorities. This practice was borne of the same racist ideology, multiculturalism, that the censors seek to impose here. Many newsrooms have been taken over by multiculturalists who do everything in their power to demonize whites, while romanticizing racial minorities, the latter who may only be portrayed as heroes or as the victims of white racism. Previously, the newspapers would print as full a description as possible of the perpetrator(s) of a crime.

Since racial minorities commit a disproportionate number of crimes, and multiculturalists have decreed that any reporting or scholarship that ever casts minorities in a less than positive light is "racist," for multiculturalists, the truth, as well as anybody guilty of telling it, is therefore "racist." Thus, only liars, censors, and self-censors have any chance of remaining even temporarily in their good graces. But even lying, censorship, and self-censorship may not be enough, for the censors may yet detect "racist" implications in one's words.

Oh, for the good old days of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot, when those who were not politically correct would be shot in the head, or worked or tortured to death, eh? 70.23.177.216 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

One -- if you put a colon (:) in front of your text it indents it and makes it easier to follow discussions.
Two -- You say that we've said nothing would satisfy User:DianaW or myself; I actually have never said that, and have given examples of the kinds of information that would render the information relevant & notable. For instance, if the assault did in fact change Gordimer's views, then it would certainly be notable. There is no evidence to suggest that it has done so. Your assertion that an assault on a 22yo would be a "life-changing trauma" is just a speculative assertion; such an incident might change one person's life and not another's. You say it's one of the "biggest incidents" of Gordimer's life but there's nothing to justify that; bigger than getting married, graduating college, and winning the Nobel Prize? Come on.
Three -- Nobody is saying that it would be absolutely irrelevant under all circumstances to include the information about the assault. Rather, I've argued that the information about the assault, in light of the other information currently in the article, is not notable and stands out. There are lots of facts that might be more notable about any author than a single criminal assault.
  • A criminal assault might certainly be included, if equivalent information were included throughout her life. For instance, we have no idea what her early life was like, what drove her to be an anti-apartheid activist, or a writer; what her relationship history was like other than a marriage; etc. All the personal biographical information right now is very bare-bones. So, current information about a recent criminal assault stands out in the article, and appears more notable because it stands out; readers will think "this information must be of equivalent importance to her winning the nobel, getting married, and writing novels".
  • Such an incident might be included if it significantly affected the person. But there is no evidence to suggest that the assault has changed Gordimer's life or affected her recognition around the world at the same level as those other aspects of her life (marriage, degree, university study, Nobel prize, lifelong writing career, lifelong anti-apartheid activism). As I pointed out above, there's no evidence that the incident changed Gordimer's views -- which would indeed be notable but should be described for that reason. The incident didn't kill her or, so far as anybody knows, significantly affect her life; there's no information that suggests the incident was significant to Gordimer. The incident was not, so far as we know, motivated by race, so the race of Gordimer and the perpetrators is not significant to any of the parties involved.
  • Having the perps' race noted by the LST is certainly one data point that suggests race might be relevant, but it's not dispositive. Newspapers regularly report crimes and racial data associated with crimes, for historical reasons including community service (identifying criminals). It doesn't mean that the information is relevant or useful for all future potential reasons. The race of Gordimer's spouse and lovers would almost certainly be more notable to Gordimer herself than the race of 3 people who assaulted her, but that information is not included, and properly so; it's actually not really of note or interest, generally. The race of the criminal perpetrators is even less notable than the other ways that race has played a role in Gordimer's life.
The only thing this anecdote contributes is, precisely, a point of view that it's "ironic" that someone who fights against state-sponsored racism was then a victim of an individual criminal assault by members of the disadvantaged race. Since there are not, currently, in the article any discussions about the merits of racism, antiracism, or anything else substantively addressing Gordimer's views from the various potential points of view that exist, then this information, right now, simply offers a single POV. That's imbalanced and so, until and unless someone sees fit to write a balanced and comprehensive discussion into which this information would fit, then I think it should be deleted, because its inclusion effectuates a POV (yours, apparently) that the race aspects of this particular incident are themselves important and significant and notable. Finding notability solely because of race is pretty much the sine qua non of a racist POV.
Finally, it is very different to describe an action as racist, and describe a person as racist. I, at least, have been careful about describing only your actions, and not your character or attitudes. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly described my & User:DianaW's character "cowardly", "anti-white", and so on. You're in violation of Wikipedia:Wikiquette. (And I would point out that "cowardly" is a very strange term for an unnamed editor using an IP address to direct at other editors who sign their edits & identify themselves & their views on their user pages.) Describing actions taken regarding a DISPUTE is not "vandalism" and constitutes a Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --LQ 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you LQuilter. Not enough time right now for all the issues raised but want to point out a couple of other things: as you say such an event *could* be notable in a person's life but the main thing mitigating against this right now is that it only happened to her a few weeks ago. It's gossip column info at this point. It's reported in the newspapers only because she is a famous person, and things that happen to famous people are "news" (rightly or wrongly). Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. An attack or similar trauma could of course actually change her views on things or affect her writing or her politics, etc. - but if so, this will not be known for quite some time - not 6 weeks after it occurred. There is absolutely nothing to point in this direction at present. Also, it's not just that the incident was not, so far as we know, motivated by race - actually, even if it *were* motivated by race it would not necessarily rise to the level of "notable" in this author's life. I think the only way it would become "notable" vis encyclopedia content would be if they attacked her *because of who she was*. If they singled her out as a not just a white woman but as a famous writer or singled her out because of her political views. (Which wouldn't make a lot of sense in any event.) But I don't think there's even any suggestion of this. From what I've read of it she was "singled out" only in the sense that they probably singled out somebody in a fairly well-to-do neighborhood (and of course, around Johannesburg that means white neighborhoods) and she lives in a neighborhood that is not one of the newer "gated" communities with heavy security. They picked the house of someone who looked like she'd have some stuff, in other words, and probably had no idea who she was. They probably identified her as an old lady living alone in a fairly nice house, and thus a good victim. It is therefore an incident that registers on no scale of notability or significance other than "random." I mean if she'd had a car accident or broke her leg or a tree fell over in her yard, would we be discussing it on wikipedia? Yet any of these situations could "impact" a woman in her 80's, or any of us. Nadine Gordimer has a bio on wikipedia because she is a famous writer. Aside from basic biographical information, events aren't "notable" from this angle unless they later prove to have something to do with her work, or unless she herself makes some public statement about their significance to her.DianaW 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Third, it is I who initiated the RfC, not DianaW, but what does the truth matter to her?" I may not be following this correctly but I didn't initiate the RFC and didn't claim to.DianaW 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


LQuilter wrote: "The incident was not, so far as we know, motivated by race, so the race of Gordimer and the perpetrators is not significant to any of the parties involved." I'm not sure I'm saying this clearly, but I think that even if the attacked turned out to have been motivated by race it would not necessarily become notable encyclopedia content. You or I or anyone could conceivably be the victim of an attack that was motivated by race, whatever our race or the perpetrator's race. There are blacks who hate whites and would attack a white person because they were white. Even if we learned that this was the case in the attack on Nadine Gordimer, I do not believe it becomes notable as encyclopedia content simply because Nadine Gordimer was an anti-apartheid activist. It is hard to extract a coherent argument out of our anonymous correspondent but I am reading the repeated reference to this event having "irony" to mean that that he/she thinks a white person who has been politically active for the rights of blacks either should be or would believe themselves to be immune to attack by black people (or immune to any form of racially motivated crime), and that after such an attack, they might change their views. It is the fact that a person *expects such an outcome* of an attack on someone - expects her to change her views - is a racist POV. The anonymous user knows what he/she thinks Gordimer's attitude ought to be now, and would like the rest of us to adopt it, too. Enough reports of black people attacking white people - even white people who support the rights of black people! see how ungrateful some blacks are! <sarcasm> - enough of such reports and maybe the rest of us will see the light? Thus those of us who say the report of the attack should be deleted are "censors" of this truth.

I could be misreading, of course, but if there's some other argument, I can't deduce what it is unless he or she tells us.

Anonymous user, I suggest to you that this attack was RANDOM and to use a very unfortunate thing that happened to have happened to this person, especially as she is elderly and in retirement, it for your own political agenda is not just wrong and unethical but STUPID. They didn't know the old lady's house that they picked happened to be a Nobel Prize winner, you know.DianaW 20:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Put another way - you're using the fact that she was attacked by black people for your own purposes. *You* apparently believe the incident demonstrates something about black/white relations and you think others will possibly hear it that way, too, if they find this information on wikipedia. We must suspect you would not consider the event noteworthy had she for instance been bitten by a dog or hit by a car, even though that could potentially have been equally traumatic. You are attributing a signficance to it that there is no reason to suspect exists. It becomes notable for encyclopedia purposes if it affects her work in some way. No, the wiki article *isn't* a general biography. People only have biographies on wikipedia if they've done something publicly notable. Random events in their personal lives shouldn't be in their biography here no matter how *personally* meaningful these events may have been to the individual, if those events are not relevant to understanding his or her work or public contributions or actions. (It may be possible sometimes to find such material in other wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean it belongs there; lots of articles on wikipedia turn into sort of fan sites, or are used for political purposes such as you are attempting to do here.)

If for instance the attack (fortunately not) left her unable to work, it might be notable in this regard; or if it caused such an upheaval in her life that she left South Africa; or if she writes or speaks about the incident, perhaps some day fictionalizes it, or chooses to reply publicly to discussions such as this one - that might make it notable to describe in her biography - AFTER this happens. Those are the only types of notability (short of her changing her political views, of course, which I suspect you are hoping) that seem to me would warrant its inclusion, and again, this probably usually can't be determined a few weeks after the incident.DianaW 22:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] plan to archive this dispute after one month of inactivity

It looks like the debate has settled down (whew), with the folks weighing in thus far agreeing that the information is not, at this point, notable and relevant enough to be included. The talk page is 53K, almost all dedicated to this discussion, so when it's appropriate, I'm going to clean up the talk page and archive this discussion with a link to the discussion from this page. I'll give it a month or so from the last substantive comment weighing in on the matter. --LQ 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/d/Talk%7ENadine_Gordimer_ed84.html"