Talk:Nadine Gordimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 A formal Request for Mediation related to this article
was filed with the Mediation Committee on 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Please see the discussion on the case's request page.
All users involved in an issue undergoing mediation must agree to the mediation within seven days; please indicate your acceptance or denial of the mediation on the case's request page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.



Contents

[edit] praise

It might be interesting to add that she is friends with Nelson Mandela [1] and that Seamus Heaney has called her one of "the guerrillas of the imagination" [2]. The trouble is, I am a bit unsure about where to insert that info in the article. Zigzig20s 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela should go into a moreo detailed bibliographic section that talks about her personal history, relationships, career, etc. Seamus Heaney quote I would put in a a discussion of her literary works. ... I want to work on these pieces too, and not just this silliness with anon editor; substantive edits take more time & I'll have more time in the next couple of months. --lquilter 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I started pulling out some subheadings. The middle heading ("Recognition and continued political engagement") might be a good place for both of the quotes you mention. --lquilter 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] debut short story in biobox

So the bio info box lists "Face to Face" as her "debut short story"; but the article itself says her first published story was "The Quest for Seen Gold" at age of 15. When was Face to Face published, and by what criteria is it being listed as her debut short story? I'm going to shift the biobox but bringing it up here first in case there's a better explanation for Face to Face. --lquilter 02:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also seen "Come Again Tomorrow", published in Forum when she was 14, cited as her first work. ... Really need to go get some definitive critical biography for this. --lquilter 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaner?

Why is she listed as an Afrikaner? 68.49.242.230 16:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)ahassan05


[edit] attack on Nadine Gordimer & attackers' race (cont'd)

Part 1 (archived) Part 2 (archived)


[edit] Ongoing edits

Doldrums introduced a new version (3/26) to try to resolve the NPOV dispute (diff); the new version foregrounds Gordimer's response and doesn't mention the assailants' racial identity. User 70.23* reverted the new version to an old one without discussion, describing the new edits as "censorship" (diff1, diff2, diff3 (three reverts in 25 hours on March 29/30, of both 130.* and Doldrums edits)); and Doldrums put it back asking for discussion (diff). Yakuman added back in the disputed material, foregrounding the attack in the discussion, and removed the NPOV-section tag (diff). Lquilter replaced the NPOV dispute tag (diff). --lquilter 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yakuman removed the NPOV tag without discussion (diff); I replaced it again, because the disputed material about the assailants' race renders the section non-neutral. (diff)). Yakuman, simply combining two disputed pieces of content does not create "consensus"; consensus is arrived at through discussion and actual agreement among the disputing parties that a version is acceptable to all. This version is not acceptable to all parties. Specifically, it's not acceptable to me. Although I think it has yet to be demonstrated that the incident has any notability whatsoever, I am willing to compromise on mentioning the incident itself. But I am unpersuaded by any arguments thus ventured that the race of her assailants is notable. (The arguments thus far are that (a) it is ironic because she is an anti-apartheid activist; and (b) it is part of a Black-on-White crime wave.) So, NPOV-section tag is still needed. --lquilter 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop this campaign to revive a dead dispute. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Yakuman talk page, where Yakuman responded on the substance of the issue: Race is something you are born with. That's as neutral as it gets. In other words, it is a plain fact. Are people to believe that the woman was robbed by Hispanics? Asians? Swedes? You have no case to keep that tag alive. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (diff) Actually, race is a rather fraught concept to begin with. However, that aside, the point as has been made repeatedly is that we do not mention the "race" of each and every person in each and every incident throughout wikipedia. Rather, we do so when it is relevant. Here, I contend that nobody has shown that the race of the assailants or Nadine Gordimer is in any way relevant to this incident-- there's no evidence that it caused the event or that there has been any fallout from the incident regarding race. Clearly, the assailants' race is relevant to some people's opinion of race relations in South Africa, or how Nadine Gordimer "ought" to have responded. But no objective, real-world showing of relevance has yet been made, other than these opinions that it ought to be considered. So since the assailants' race has no independent relevance (other than some people's opinions that it matters), including it unnecessarily is undue weight. Rather than edit-war with those who insist on including this non-notable and non-neutral information, I am including the NPOV-section tag. --lquilter 14:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You made this case before. The dispute remains dead. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think so? --lquilter 14:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Further explanation is not only unnecessary, it allows to carry on your edit war. WP:POINT. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Further" explanation? You have yet to explain why you think your compromise version addresses the dispute. --lquilter 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That I can't explain in a way that suits your ideology is true. There's nothing I can do. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my "ideology" isn't at issue here, because this isn't about the substance of the dispute; this is about the NPOV tag and is a question of logic: When a dispute is about including or not including content, how is including the content a "compromise"? --lquilter 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
have reverted the Yakuman's version 'coz -
  1. the "high-security" stuff is flatly contradicted by the source.
  2. no reason to think that "she was locked up in the storeroom" is notable enough to be in her biography.
  3. still no reasons advanced why the race of the attackers is notable enough to be mentioned. lquilter and others have pointed out that details such as race of an attacker are not mentioned in an encyclopedic biography unless there is a compelling reason to do so. editors who have suggested that the race is significant would be better served by showing that it is so, for instance, by providing a source where Gordimer, or some other notable person/organisation says so. Doldrums 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're repeating the same arguments; this is just filibustering and is unhelpful. Yakuman (数え役満) 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
i'm pointing out that a statement in the article is contradicted by the source provided. u think that constitutes "filibustering and is unhelpful"? Doldrums 16:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary NPOV tag

Keeping that NPOV tag is silly and disruptive. No relevant facts were left out of either. It is a fair compromise that does justice to both sides. This dispute is over, whether or not you personally are persuaded. Move on. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As you should understand, the point of dispute is the unnecessary and unjustified inclusion of content. So including the disputed information does not resolve the dispute. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. --lquilter 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You are on an ideological crusade and refuse to accept that you are not allowed to censor facts you dislike. In the interest of good faith and fair dealing, I drafted a compromise edit. I was WP:BOLD and created a version that include facts from both sides. You are now making the attack, regardless of how you interpret the past. Stop this campaign to revive a dead dispute. Do not include me in a disruptive war of words. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. I appreciate that you see your version as a "compromise", but with all due respect, it does not actually compromise or address the disputes. The previous compromise version by User:Doldrums compromised between the people who thought both (a) the incident was non-notable and (b) the assailants' race was non-notable and undue weight; Doldrums' version (diff) included the incident, and foregrounded Gordimer's take on it. Your version (diff) simply adds back in the assailants' race, wiping out the (a)-(b) compromise, and returning it back to a version that includes both disputed pieces of information. Hence the tag. --lquilter 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to be defensive. I'm not looking for a fight with you, although you seem armed for one. There was no personal attack. As it stands, you are a revert away from a 3RR block. Your disruptive tone and behavior do not show good faith. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Replacing warnings that are being discussed on this page is not really a WP:3RR issue, and I'm surprised you would suggest that it is. (Especially since you have removed the warning yourself three times.) However, if you're in doubt, please go ahead and post on the Administrators' noticeboard, since if this is a type of 3RR it would be useful for both of us to know that.--lquilter 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't believe it is a 3RR issue, you may be proven wrong if you make that fourth revert. I refer to your constant attempts to reinsert that unnecessary NPOV tag, not this page. That's why I warned you. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This "meta-dispute" is getting silly. No more needs to be said on this matter. If you remove the tag inappropriately -- while there is still a NPOV dispute -- I will put it back rather than reverting the actual content. If you think this is a 3RR matter, please do take it up with the Administrators' noticeboard. There is no need for further discussion of the NPOV tag itself. --lquilter 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Your whole disruptive campaign is silly, yet you want to drag it out. Obviously, I have no desire to take it up with the Administrators' noticeboard. Yakuman (数え役満) 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously. --lquilter 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, anon editor 75.213.227.60 (gee, I wonder who that could be) just reinstated Yakuman's disputed version, and removed the NPOV tag; I replaced the NPOV / disputed section tag because this section includes disputed content. I invite anon user 75.213.227.60 to describe its reasons for reverting. (And Yakuman now has an opportunity to press this issue before the administrators noticeboard, should she feel so inclined, because I have clearly and without question replaced this tag more than 3 times on this article.) --lquilter 15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another version

Well, none of the several anonymous IP editors who stepped up the plate after Yakuman dropped out of the conversation bothered to explain their reverts and removals of the NPOV-section tag. Since they clearly want something in, but didn't explain what, I rewrote the version (diff) to respond to (a) anonymous editor 70.23.* who thinks the incident itself is notable; (b) Doldrums' useful points that the high-security aspect is nowhere documented (it isn't really notable anyway); (c) Doldrums' point about deleting unnecessary detail (wedding ring, storage closet, daytime); (d) Andyparkerson's version that mentioned crime rate; (e) Teratornis' point that it is notable because of Gordimer's attitude. I did not include the race of the assailants because nobody has yet documented that the race of the assailants was a factor in their decision to atack, or had any effect. If this version appears to be uncontroversial, we can (eventually) remove the NPOV-section tag. --lquilter 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

i feel that the "otherwise unnotable" and "inspired a humanitarian response" are original commentary on the incident. would prefer a straight recounting of what happened, unadorned with such comments, instead. o/w it's fine by me. another small point is the high-security stuff is not merely undocumented, but contradicted by the Times source. Doldrums 18:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You're definitely right about the "otherwise unnotable"; I regret that I let my wiki-talk assertions seep into mainspace editing. I'l delete the otherwise unnotable thing, and maybe you can take a stab after at rewriting to delete the humanitarian response piece. --lquilter 19:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) ... (I took a stab at both - please feel free to edit back. I realize that it's basically back to your version, which I am okay with.) --lquilter 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the quick response (and for expanding the rest of article). the section looks fine by me. Doldrums 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in the conversation, but I can only repeat that you are trying to restate issues that were brought up before and ended with no consensus, thus my edit is the only viable option that shows any respect to both sides. As I see one side will not be satistied until the account of the attack is redacted or censored, I must insist that you stop reopening an old wound. We are at an impasse here, as you can't create a consenus that "black" cannot be used. You just can't. It is a relevant true, cited fact. So my option is the only viable option. I should point out that 3RR has been stomped on here. As I would rather not see tempers frayed any further, I won't make a further issue of it in this instance. I'm sorry this makes you unhappy, but there's no better option. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) Contrary to your assertion, the assailants' race has yet to be shown to be relevant or notable. The truthfulness of that fact is not being challenged, but truth is not enough to insert trivial facts. (2) Your proposed edit did not attempt to resolve the dispute whatsoever; it simply included all the dispute content. Doldrums' edit, by contrast, carved a middle ground between the neither-are-relevant people (including me) and the both-are-relevant people (you). (3) Sorry to hear that you can't support the current version ([3]), but that's why we have a NPOV tag on the page: to facilitate discussion and eventual resolution of this dispute. So please feel free to offer support for your assertions that the assailants' race is relevant and notable, and not simply a trivial fact that lends WP:NPOV#Undue weight to this incident. Right now, it looks to me like just one more minor demographic detail about the assailants, such as their age, their occupation, their birthplace, their marital status, and so on, and as such, it is simply a distraction from the encyclopedia article about Gordimer. The reason Gordimer is notable is her writing, and so this article really needs considerable more work on the subject of Gordimer's notability -- not on a minor 6-month-old criminal assault that had no discernible impact on her life or anyone else's. But if you have cites to published articles asserting that race was a factor in this attack, or that the assailants' race affected Gordimer, or that it had any other impact in the world, please put them forward. --lquilter 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough, already! How about we don't change the section for a month, and then revisit it then? We can also agree not to argue about it for a month. No edit-warring. No constant 3RR threats. Let's just leave it alone for 30 days. I think that's reasonable. Andyparkerson 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Gardimer is notable for getting in on the ground floor of the ANC anti-apartheid movement and reaping the rewards of it. Her writings largely consist of political agitation. The "international recognition" was more about her "political engagement" that the work itself. I say this not to soapbox, but to demonstrate an alternate theory of notabillity than that presented above. Yakuman (数え役満) 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet the awards she has won have all been literary awards, prima facie evidence that her recognition is primarily about her work. ... There's no controversy about the fact that she's a major political activist, though, so I'm not sure why you even bother to mention this. ... lquilter 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yakuman, please quit describing the version you cobbled together as a "compromise" version. It is not a compromise between the two positions, one of which thinks both the incident and the race are irrelevant; and the other of which thinks the incident and race are relevant (the one because of the other, in fact). Therefore, the version you wrote precisely recapitulates one of the positions, and is in no sense a compromise. lquilter 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid personal attacks. I did not "cobble" something together. I drafted a good-faith compromise. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't question that it was a good faith attempt at a compromise; I am merely pointing out that it is not, in fact, a compromise at all. --lquilter 22:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the sarcasm. As another person in this same debate has said of you, "until you can get those you oppose banned, your m.o. is to wear them down through interminable flame wars." I made a good-faith compromise, which you won't accept because the text does not suit your WP:SOAPBOX agenda. I must ask you to stop wasting my time with this. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't being sarcastic; I was acknowledging your good faith, but pointing out that your version is not a compromise. ... A note in passing: Your rhetorical style is quite interesting. You say things like, "stop wasting my time on this" as if someone is forcing you to participate in the debate, or forcing you to edit this article. It's an interesting technique, and I wonder if you do it on purpose, or if it's just your style? ... At any rate, regardless of your rhetorical choices, so long as you post the disputed text without addressing the complaints about it, the conversation will continue here on the talk page. Rather than asking fellow editors to quit bothering you with their disagreements with your editorial choices, you need to respond to the substance of their comments. I refer you to earlier discussions for that substance, which you have yet to address. --lquilter 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking "editors." I'm asking you. Please stop the flame wars. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problems with Yakuman's 4/4 version

Here are some of the significant problems with the version that User:Yakuman inserted on 4/4 several times (diff1, diff1.5, diff2, diff3):

  • The incident is not notable. While it was newsworthy, it is not encyclopedia notable. It is almost 6 months old and apparently had no lasting impact on Gordimer or the world.
  • The incident is described disproportionately to other aspects of Gordimer's biography. Were every such minor incident in Gordimer's life to be described with a paragraph of text, this article would be a small book.
  • The comment about "grim irony" is a POV. Moreover, it is sourced from an editorial, not a news source. (And the editorial is factually inaccurate in its characterization of Gordimer's works; see, e.g., July's People.) POV was acknowledged by Yakuman. [4]
  • The facts are in dispute. The version currently listed says "four" men; other sources say "three". See, e.g., the NYT article [5].
  • The race of the assailants has not been shown to be notable. Biographical and demographic details of people mentioned in passing in the article need not be described unless they are relevant to the incident. For instance, we don't describe the race, age, marital status, sexual preferences, etc., of the attorney, Gordimer's husband, or other people mentioned in the Gordimer biography.

Since this version incorporates the same text from older versions, it incorporates the same problems. Doldrums' compromise version of 3/26 (diff) or mine of yesterday (diff) include the event, foreground Gordimer's response, and leave out disputed and unnecessary detail. Andyparkerson's version of 3/3 (diff) is a bare-bones factual version that would also be an okay compromise. --lquilter 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing new here that hasn't been discussed before. You will accept nothing short of censoring the verified fact that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. See below for more on this subject. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The points have all been raised before (by other editors as well as me) but nobody has yet raised any point other than (a) one editorial comment (cited) that it is "ironic"; and (b) that Johannesburg has a black-on-white crime problem. The "ironic" point is a self-evident POV. User 70.23.* characterized this incident as part of a black-on-white crime wave, but there's no citation or discussion anywhere to support that assessment, so it constitutes uncited opinion at best. --lquilter 03:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protection request

FYI: After reinserting her version of the paragraph containing disputed material, replacing a more neutral paragraph, ([6]), Yakuman requested page protection, with a somewhat accurate albeit highly selective rendition of the facts. (It's good form to let folks know that sort of thing, I think.) Since the onus is really on people seeking to include information to substantiate notability etc., maybe the best "compromise" on how to write this paragraph is to delete it altogether. --lquilter 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the way it is now, where it lists what happened and her reaction to it, are fine. It does seem to be less and less notable as time goes by. I would be happy with something along the lines of "In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home. She was not seriously injured." Of course, I would be equally happy if there were no mention of the robbery at all. I'm sure it peeved her at the time, but she's probably over it by now.
I wish there were a way to protect one section. But I don't think protection is the way to go here. We just need to come up with something that works for both sides. It seems that removal of all mention of the robbery is not acceptable. It also seems that the "grim irony" version is equally unacceptable. How about every editor with a view on this (all 5 of us) come up with a version that he could possibly believe would be acceptable. Then we can compare, and come up with some solution. Andyparkerson 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, all of these are acceptable to me: (1) don't mention it at all; (2) Michaelbarreto version of 10/29/2006 diff; (3) Doldrums' compromise version of 3/26 (diff); (4) my compromise of 4/3 (diff); (5) Andyparkerson's version of 3/3 (diff); (6) Andyparkerson's suggestion above (4/5) (diff). --lquilter 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You're still trying to censor the verifiable fact that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. This business of calling every redaction a "compromise" edit simply mocks and insults my previous attempt to end this mess. You're even trying to censor that she's a leftist. See below. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andyparkerson's Proposed Version

In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home. She was not seriously injured.[1]

This works for me. --lquilter 00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This simply deletes substantive details that LQ wants deleted. It says nothing substantive, in short, it attempts to reverse my compromise. It leaves out details of the perps, the location, the other victimt, etc. Adding material is preferable to censorship. I don't want to rehash a debate that has carried on for months, which is what LQ seems (even in good faith) to want. Maybe if LQ suggested a version of this graf that she would accept that does not censor the verified fact that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer, we might not have an impasse.
I have produced a fair compromise that contains all details from both sides. LQ rejected it, mocked me for it, and even sought to have me blocked for it. (It's good form to let folks know that sort of thing, I think.) She claimed I added and readded unverified material (with sockpuppets[!]), when the text was my GF union of two versions in toto. Once I discovered the problem, in her complaint against me, I deleted it. She knew I had simply combined pre-existing grafs, this strikes me as an obvious WP:GAME to ensure that Wikipedia forgets that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. This defeats my assumption of good faith. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the versions I listed aren't acceptable, then I would alternatively be happy to consider versions that include the race if someone could produce citations that support the notability and relevance of the assailants' race. (An opinion of "irony" isn't enough.) Most of the news accounts didn't even bother to mention it. (I dispute Yakuman's second paragraph almost in its entirety.) --lquilter 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're rehashing the same old "tell me why I can't censor the black perps" arguments. Again, I tried to settle things and you tried to block me for it, to support your campaign to ensure that Wikipedia forgets that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. This defeats my assumption of good faith. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I dispute that, but since you keep raising it, someone else brought up an issue on the AIV about anonymous editors, and I added your contributions & timing to the edit history. I'm not going to keep responding to these charges. Let's stay on the topic of the Nadine Gordimer article. --lquilter 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You could have cleared up the confusion; instead you worked to make things worse. First, you tried to censor that black perps attacked Nadine Gordimer. Then you went after 70; you personally attacked him even today, questioning whether he ever made good faith edits. Now you've tried to have me blocked. Your tactics don't leave anyone room to move. I've been acting in good faith and you're pulling tights. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] seeking rapprochement

Okay, Yakuman and I have been having a few side conversations, and I credit us both for attempting to ease tensions. I'm posting a synthesis of my thoughts & understandings and hope we (all of us, but Yakuman and me particularly) can both agree to these groundrules:

  • Avoid inflammatory rhetoric and accusations of sockpuppetry, censorship, conspiracies, accusations of personal attacks, actual personal attacks, characterizing one another's motives or intents, and so on. Address only substantive points.
  • I believe we would all agree that the true bone of contention is the issue of the assailants' race. I am posting below two versions that are fairly short and eliminate all points of disagreement except for the assailants' race. I propose that we then post the +race version, with the NPOV tag, and let it sit for a month while we discuss on talk page, and/or take it to mediation (or whatever the appropriate procedure is).
    1. In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home. She was not seriously injured.[2]
    2. In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home by four black men. She was not seriously injured.[3]
  • Other work on the article and in wikipedia should proceed separately, and we should strive to not let this dispute spill over onto 3rd party talk pages, AIV pages, and so on.
  • If you agree, please sign below. --lquilter 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I inserted the +race version, only to have it reverted by Yakuman. At this point I'd be willing to accept anything that doesn't mention the "grim irony" of the situation. I've tried to remove just that sentence, but again have had it reverted by Yakuman. There seems to be little dialogue here, other than a few people trying to find a solution, and others maintaining that anything other than the version Yakuman keeps reverting to is censorship. We may be at an impasse. I don't know where to go from here. Andyparkerson 14:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to my world since November. Anyway, I think mediation is in order, because none of the proponents of inclusion of this incident or of the assailants' ethnicity have engaged in dialog on this matter. When asked for justification they have largely refused to give any other than claiming censorship. When they have offered partial justifications (this was serious to Gordimer; this is ironic; this is part of a pattern of black-on-white violence in South Africa) they have not responded to refutations or critiques of the arguments. I want to take this to mediation, because I took it to an RFC in Nov/Dec, and although everyone (at that time) agreed that the content was non-notable, 70.23* refused to respect the opinions of the majority of the editors. I was advised that the majority of editors could just keep reverting 70.23* since he was in the minority, but that has led to nothing but ongoing edit warring, and since then Yakuman has taken up the 70.23*'s flag on this page (and generally). Andyparkerson, if you want to look up mediation procedures and draft it, I'll contribute to it. --Lquilter 15:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of [Nadine Gordimer] has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Andyparkerson 23:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am posting the above paragraph on the talk pages of the following users:
Decline mediation as there is nothing to mediate. WP:WL Yakuman (数え役満) 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No wikilawyering please, I'm English.

Mediation simply drags out a silly dispute longer. One problem is that Stix was chased off and has no say in any of this, so I get to do twice the work. I also don't see to have the inordinate amount of time to fight over one issue that LQ seems to have.

If you think Wikipedia is supposed to be a bastion of sensitivity, see Crystal Gail Mangum, where the entire article raises more issues than our disputed paragraph. Good grief, its an African-American female rape accuser illustrated with a mugshot! If y'all want to dispute, go fight over that one.

The very fact that there's a dispute is evidence that there's political ramifications to the incident, which deserve coverage. Otherwise, the article is a banal hagiography anyway. We don't really need more wikilawyering over this. Let the readers read what I provided and let them make their own conclusions. Yakuman (数え役満) 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you forsee this dispute ending anytime soon? It seems clear that it is going to drag on forever in this state, or until one party or the other quits in disgust. Mediation would be much preferred for both sides than ending the dispute by the quitting of one side. As for the inordinant amount of time it would require, mediation would take less time than the constant editing and reverting this page sees daily. Writing a few paragraphs supporting your position is much less work than making 30 or 40 edits a day, or reverting a section several times a day. If you have a problem with Crystal Gail Mangum, please address it at the talk page there. It is not material to this discussion. Andyparkerson 01:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't start this dispute. I'm not continuing this dispute. One user, who states she is a lawyer, insists on wasting our time until she can censor content that offends her sensibilities. I want to give people enough information to make their own decisions on a vital matter. There's nothing to mediate. Your comments on the other article are a wee bit off; Crystal Gail Mangum is material to this issue, because it shows that Wikipedia is not necessarily a bastion of "sensitivity." Yakuman (数え役満) 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar:Everybody is Welcome! Except You!

In Wikipedia, anybody can edit. Anybody! But the downside of everybody being able to edit is that they often do.

While Wikipedia makes a big deal about everybody getting to edit, in fact there's a number of things they don't like to see edited, and which are undone (deleted, reverted) as soon as they're recognized. This includes:

  • Vandalism (saying things people don't like)
  • Libel (saying things people don't like)
  • Hate speech (saying things people don't like)
  • Disruption (Pointing out that you keep getting deleted for "vandalism", "libel", and "hate speech")

Naturally, this leads to conflict: anger, flamewars, quoting of the wikipedia laws of the second, acronyms flying like panties in a dryer. And in this melee, it's kind of a toss-up who will actually "win". With enough effort, the people who added new information might be stopped from doing so, or the people who wanted to get rid of all that nasty new information will be thwarted and Wikipedia will incrementally improve. You could hold wagers on it, with the occasional surprise in each direction making it interesting. "I got 4:1 odds that they're going to be able to leave the paragraph in! Place yer bets! Place yer bets!"

But this fun and enjoyable back and forth obscures a more dark side: people end up having enormous amounts of their time wasted. They make an effort to improve the Wikipedia, add paragraphs of information, do actual research, and then some yamnut comes along and declares it null and void because of their unique interpretation of the ever-shifting "law."[7] Yakuman (数え役満) 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current edit

The Andyparkerson edit [8] showing on the page as I write this is fine by me. Principle is that we should try to give the readers a decent amount of material and let them make their own decisions. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I make many edits of this, trying to find some permutation that will be acceptable. Please don't take any one of my edits to be how I think this article should read; it is merely an attempt to arrive at some state of rest. As for giving readers a decent amount of material, my main problem with the article as it stands now is the "grim irony" quote. It is clearly R.W.Johnson's opinion, and represents his individual point of view. Just because his point of view is published somewhere does not make it germaine to the article. Many people have many differing points of view. Andyparkerson 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This whole article spends plenty of time praising of her and all this "international recognition," which is simply the POV of a committee. Here we have only one sentence with any negativity; it doesn't even move the scale. BTW, someone who read my quotation above thought I said you were *puppeting. I did not make that accusation, nor do I intend to attack AP, and I regret any confusion. I copied a piece of a commentary, decribing the futility of deletion campaigns. In the original, this is an explanation for why people create *puppets. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Undue weight. one non-notable journalist finds the racial aspect "ironic", 3 other journalists don't even find the racial aspect worth mentioning. yet, u insist that that one person's view shld be given roughly the same weight, in number of words, as her Nobel citation gets in the article. Doldrums 10:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lit crit

Okay, I've done a second major overhaul of the article, adding in many more references, and starting to give some short summaries and notes on her major works. There's more to do; I haven't even touched her short stories or her documentary work with her son. But at least there's something there. Still need:

  • much of the early novels
  • most of her 1990s novels

--lquilter 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some work on this article that's not about the robbery. It looks good. I think there are too many subdivisions, especially at the end. The References, Further Reading, See Also, and External Links seems like a lot. But I'm not sure how to fix it, or really if it needs to be fixed at all. I'll play around with it and see what I can do. I'll probably wind up leaving it like it is. Andyparkerson 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate external links sections, since they really are almost always "further reading". The References section should be renamed "Notes" and put into short form and also made so that it just lists works once; I'll do the renaming & short form, but will have to research the reference format to get it so that it just links to each unique footnote reference once. (I did a bunch of substantive work on this article in Jan/Feb, too, btw, but sometimes all one has time for is putting out fires.) --lquilter 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I did some reorg in response to your cmts. Andyparkerson, it would be swell if you could also add more to the lit crit stuff about her novels -- that section has thus far been drafted only by me, and could probably use another perspective, as well as more summaries about the major works. --lquilter 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to help on the lit crit stuff, but I've never actually read any of her works. I only got involved in this page because of the aforementioned firefighting. All I know about Gordimer is what is written here. All I can do is help rewrite, and reorganize, and restructure things here. And please, call me Andy. Andyparkerson 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] activism

doesn't her political engagement need a mention in the lead article and categories? Doldrums 08:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Yakuman (数え役満) 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spring Cleaning

I removed a disputed fact claim and restored an important sentence which was lost in the edit wars. I also made some nonsectarian copyedits, oplus I cleared up several redundancies, POV clains, etc. HTH. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Busy day on the page today. Removed references to "regime", since that sounds POV to me. Of course, the statement "Apartheid is bad." is POV, so being objective here is not all that easy. Using neutral language is more important than advancing a viewpoint in this article. We should all remember that. Andyparkerson 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine to leave it out, but please look at regime, specifically, The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term. --lquilter 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I agree that it may not necessarily be POV, by definition. However the way it is currently used in popular speech, as opposed to technical speech, makes me feel it seems rather POV. It's a connotation/denotation issue, and maybe it's not that big a deal after all. Stupid language. Andyparkerson 21:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I left "regime" in. <smile> Yakuman (数え役満) 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now, wait...

Joining the Communist Party has nothing to do with Communism? That's just strange. I think we have enought disputed content as it is. I didn't add it. Its cited, non-defamatory and has no direct racial connotation. This isn't one of the Hollywood Ten pleasing the fifth. There is neither secret, nor POV, nor controversy. Just leave it, ok?Yakuman (数え役満) 08:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

why is his communism notable or relevant enough to be mentioned here? i bet this guy's also right-handed, we don't mention that, do we? the reason i've removed more than one statement u've added to this article is u've not demonstrated why those statements are notable or relevant to this article. do you want me to quote all the bits of various WP policies that tell you how and why notability and relevance determines the content of articles? Doldrums 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I probably added "Communist lawyer" to the initial description of Fischer in the novel section. However, while it's not secret, defamatory, etc., it would probably be more accurate in the context of the novel to descrbe him as the "anti-apartheid lawyer", because the novel focuses more closely on that. At any rate his name links to his article where all concerned can find out more about him, including the fact that he died in prison as a result of state repression of the SACP. --lquilter 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
i took a look at his biography and found very little to support the idea that his Communist party membership leadership is particularly notable about him, in this context. the "anti-apartheid lawyer" or similar formulation sounds fine to me. Doldrums 12:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important Retraction

I have retracted my initial refusal of mediation to allow 70.* a chance to vote on this matter. Since he has been the flag-bearer on this issue, if he votes "Agree," I intend to go along with him. That's only fair. Yakuman (数え役満) 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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