Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 attack on Nadine Gordimer & attackers' race (cont'd) 1.1 Earlier discussion archives 1.2 Ongoing edits 1.3 Unnecessary NPOV tag 1.4 Another version 1.5 problems with Yakuman's 4/4 version 1.6 protection request 1.7 Andyparkerson's Proposed Version 1.8 seeking rapprochement 1.9 Mediation 1.10 Sidebar:Everybody is Welcome! Except You! 1.11 Current edit 1.12 Important Retraction 1.13 mentioning race in Gordimer's statement 1.14 next steps? 1.15 BLP and notability 1.16 Full protection 1.17 Unfinished Edits 1.17.1 Doldrums 1.17.2 Missing Material 1.17.2.1 Reflist 1.18 "viewpoints" tag 1.18.1 "systemic bias" 1.18.2 "too admiring" 1.18.3 "little critical disscussion" (sic) 1.18.4 "what exists has been edit warred for months" 1.19 RFC (April, 2007) on robbery

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

Earlier discussion archives

• Part 1 (archived) ...
• Part 2 (archived)

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)

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)

"::: 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..."

You really have no shame. I just found your little insinuation buried in your thicket of lies, clicked on the talk page of the person in question, and saw that you have insinuated that it is either me or User:Yakuman. That makes sense, following your m.o. of plotting to have us both banned, while simultaneously insinuating that no one could possibly support my position, even though more have supported mine than have supported yours!

By the way, I have never "signed in under different IPs." I simply sign in the same way every time. That my IP sometimes floats is something that I was unaware of, until another editor asked me if I were someone else. And I told him that I was that person. And since you have spent untold hours studying my talk page, you knew that full well. And so one of us compulsively uses deception, but that person is not me.

By any means necessary, eh?

In struggle, 70.23.199.239 07:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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 ([1]), 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)

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. [2]
• The facts are in dispute. The version currently listed says "four" men; other sources say "three". See, e.g., the NYT article [3].
• 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 self-evidently a 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)

"The 'ironic' point is self-evidently a POV." As I have pointed out again and again, quoting a POV comment from an article within an Antipedia entry does not violate WP:NPOV. Please hit the law books, Lquilter, and read the relevant statute.

Lquilter: "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."

Nonsense. Of course, I inserted supporting material,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadine_Gordimer&diff=prev&oldid=111013930

:“==Recent events and incidents of note==

“In the sort of black-on-white crime that has become a daily occurrence in South Africa,^[1] Gordimer 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….”

which you not only immediately deleted, but at the time you deleted all reference to the incident. And since you violated WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA in your very first statement to me, when you called me a racist before I had said word one to you, and you just lied, in seeking to cover your tracks, you are guilty of a classic case of WP:VAN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadine_Gordimer&diff=prev&oldid=111073910

By the way, in the matter of shifting grounds, when the attack had just occurred, Lquilter said it was too new. Now he says it’s too old. He means to censor the truth ...

by any means necessary.

In struggle, 70.23.199.239 07:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

protection request

FYI: After reinserting her version of the paragraph containing disputed material, replacing a more neutral paragraph, ([4]), 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)

Andyparkerson's Proposed Version

In October 2006, Nadine Gordimer was robbed and assaulted at her home. She was not seriously injured.^[2]

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)

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.^[2]
• 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)
  • lquilter 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (obviously)
  • Andyparkerson 21:10, 6 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)

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:

• Andyparkerson
• Lquilter
• Yakuman (数え役満)
• Doldrums
• 70.23.199.239
• DianaW

(responding to Yakuman's statement elsewhere that he declined because there was nothing to mediate.) Yakuman, you can decline here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer -- but I'm amazed that anyone could think there is nothing to mediate. --lquilter 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(comment on description above) With all due respect, I was actually willing to compromise on mentioning the event itself; I was also willing to compromise on mentioning the race of the assailants if some relevance could be shown and cited. On the "ironic", yeah, I agree, I'm not willing to compromise to include the "ironic" comment unbalanced by anything else. If there were other editorial perspectives then we could have balance ... but virtually nobody outside of wikipedia editors Yakuman and 70.23* (and Teratornis briefly) have ever thought this incident was notable enough to write about it. ... Which to me just raises the question: why does this incident even need to be in an encyclopedia entry at all?!? --lquilter 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Although DianaW was a major participant in November and December, her last edit on these pages was Jan. 6, 2007, and her last edit on wikipedia at all was Feb. 7. It would be great if she participated, but her non-participation shouldn't scuttle the current mediation request. The same for Teratornis, who in the middle of March contributed briefly but significantly to the discussion (on the 70.23*/Yakuman side) without edit-warring. It would be great to have participation from that editor, but is there an "FYI" that doesn't require their participation to do mediation? The current editors AP, LQ, Yak, Dol, and 70.23*; and the consistent editors have been 70.23* and Lquilter. --lquilter 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize DianaW hasn't been active in 2 months. I will try to remove her name from the RfM. If I am unable to do that, I will have to resubmit it later. Plus, I don't think it is useful to argue this matter anymore on the talk page, at least when it concerns previous edits. Everyone knows what the other one thinks should and should not be on the page. Any further rehashing of the argument seems like a waste of time. I know the adage is "Take it to Talk," but at some point all the talking has been done. I think we have reached that point, where open discussion will bring us no further. Andyparkerson 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've checked in sometimes to see what's going on here but I'm not able to participate at this time. I'll add a comment to that effect at the Mediation page, hopefully so as not to derail your efforts. Good luck - you'll need it. I've survived one other "mediation" and "arbitration" at wikipedia and wasn't left feeling very positively about wikipedia. Basically, anonymous editing (not to mention anonymous "administrating") means the zealots are going to win. Mr. Seventy Twenty Three (whose real identity I think the rest of you know? but the rules protect him, rather than protecting the article from him) can just come back in 6 months under a new name - and if you don't care for that sort of game, you can't compete. But in any case, right now I don't have the hours of time every day this takes. Sorry to sound so negative, I do admire all your efforts on this article, though. I actually have a longer essay of Coetzee's on Gordimer, and have been meaning to get around to adding some quotes from it to this article, but can't promise when.DianaW 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi DianaW - Look forward to the quotes from the Coetzee article. I cited to one today, actually, a 2003 review in NYROB -- is that the one? Anyway, I'm getting back to wikipedia after a 6-week relative hiatus myself, and just want this thing over with. --lquilter 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a book of Coetzee's essays on other writers and I can't seem to put my hands on it. Will keep looking. As I said, good luck with the mediation, I don't think I would be much help anyway, I tend to spout off, if these guys say "Are you saying I'm racist?" I will have a tendency to say, "Yes, I'm saying you're racist" and they'll gleefully reply with all the wikipedia acronyms, you've violated WP:AGF WP:CIVIL WP:BLAH. I would end up messing things up for you. Good luck!DianaW 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, now I see my name had already been removed anyway.DianaW 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nasty as They Wanna Be

Let’s see. People who have imposed a de facto permanent block on me now want me to agree to “mediation.” What’s wrong with this picture?

More images. The other day, I stumbled onto a cell in which Lquilter and some of her cronies had a few weeks ago begun organizing a lynch mob to do officially what has already been done to me informally for the last, I don’t know, almost five months, and have me banned. One of their implied cover stories is that this lynching has nothing to do with Lquilter’s need to control the Nadine Gordimer fan page. But if that is so, why is his the loudest voice? Other comrades in the cell include User:Durova, User:Athaenara, and User:EdJohnston, who were saying that I have “behavioral issues.” Translated into English, that means that if they had the power they crave, they would prefer to have me incarcerated in a psycho gulag and shot up with drugs, rather than have me shot behind the ear.

(When the cadrists at the admin level want to “give you the business,” as Ben Dreith used to say, they play a rotation strategy. The thug who wants to give it to you hands the job off to a comrade, so as to have plausible deniability. Since they are always doing each other’s dirty work, complaining about administrative thuggery is a waste of time, unless you have about thirty friends all willing to dive into the enemy’s trench at the same time. And even then … there are better ways of dealing with these, ahem, people.)

Durova is the thug who just officially blocked me for 48 hours, threatening me that I’d better be “more civil” or he’d … he’d … well, what the hell could he do to me, in addition to what he and his comrades have already been doing? He’s the wikiquivalent of those black jailhouse gang rapists who tear a white guy’s butt wide open, infect him with HIV, beat him within an inch of his life, and then tell him that if he complains, they’ll really hurt him.

Nah, someone like that would never be satisfied with merely interning his enemies in a psych gulag – only the bullet behind the ear will do, preferably after some good, old-fashioned, Cheka-style torture.

However, Durova went beyond threats and attempted intimidation against moi, and on Lquilter’s behalf, made a thinly veiled threat to block/ban Yakuman, if the latter does not cease and desist from defending me against Lquilter and Durova’s fellow cadrists. So, Durova is guilty of two counts each of WP:Stalking, WP:CIV, and a million billion or so other wikicrimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova#Wikipedia_as_a_reliable_source

Durova to Yakuman:

“If you wish to defuse tensions then the best thing you could do is tone down your own posts regarding that dispute, not so much toward me as toward the involved parties. DurovaCharge! 04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)”

Meanwhile, Lquilter, true to his m.o., could not constrain himself to wait until after he had gotten me banned, and is already trying to get Yakuman banned, as well. Lquilter is already using the same epithets – so much for WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc. – he has recently used against me against Yakuman for also having had the temerity to contradict him, which is a capital offense in these parts. (Lquilter maintains a principled, adamant opposition to the death penalty, except where white, heterosexual, able-bodied males and people who disagree with him are concerned.) Since anyone who disagrees with Lquilter is by definition “intolerant” and a “racist,” and the principle “no tolerance for the intolerant” is in operation, he feels no obligation to respect rules like WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF in regards to the likes of Yakuman.

So, the game plan went like this. Stage I: Lquilter would get me permanently banned. Stage II: As soon as that went through, he would get Yakuman permanently banned. Stage III: Lquilter would remove any references to the robbery and assault on Nadine Gordimer.

The fly in the ointment was that Lquilter could not control himself, and prematurely began the campaign to ban Yakuman. If he couldn’t wait to begin the anti-Yakuman campaign, and is already accusing him of “tendentiousness,” “‘gaslighting,’” i.e., the identical charges Lquilter had recently, and even on the same page just made against me, then I doubt he will be able to wait until Yakuman’s ban has gone through, before censoring the essential information from the Nadine Gordimer fan page.

To make a short story long, I’d have to be out of my bloomin' mind to consent to “mediation.” I once actually went to the trouble of asking for one of those thingies in dealing with some cadrist comrades of Lquilter’s, and they told me to go to hell. In another case, months ago, I also jumped through all of the hoops, only to be ignored. But that’s alright. I knew the game was rigged, but was giving my antagonists enough rope to hang themselves.

With that accomplished, I have no more need to play along with Antipedia’s Kangaroo courts. So, no, I will not consent to “mediation.”

70.23.199.239 07:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are not going to agree to mediation, please stop editing the page. If you have no desire to help resolve the conflicts here, please don't feel your presence here is required. If you dislike "Antipedia" so much, leave. Andyparkerson 09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

к===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)

The edit history shows that Yakuman has contributed to this dispute by repeatedly reverting and re-inserting the paragraph in dispute; by removing the NPOV-dispute tag repeatedly. --lquilter 14:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Yakuman, "I want to give people enough information to make their own decisions on a vital matter." That's ridiculous - this is not a "vital matter." The attack was random. What can't you understand about that? There's no evidence she was attacked because she was Nadine Gordimer (it's unlikely the attackers knew she was Nadine Gordimer), and there's no evidence that the attackers cared about their victim's skin color. She was attacked because she had *stuff*. A fancy house which promises, to the desperate, that there are things inside worth stealing (and which, if I recall the accounts right, was targeted because she didn't have high-tech security like many of her neighbors). If there is an issue, it would probably be poverty. One lousy comment from some hack for one newspaper, calling a sad but completely non-notable attack on an old woman "ironic," and a bunch of racist zealots are determined to hang on for months, if not years, to make sure people reading the wikipedia article on Nadine Gordimer will know that she was once robbed and beaten by black people. Crocodile tears over "censorship." Damn they are lucky the perps were black! And this is "ironic" because she was an anti-apartheid activist. Right-o. She shouldn't have bothered with all that activism stuff I guess -look where it got her. Life is so darn ironic - blacks will attack even whites who have advocated for their rights!! Andy and LQuilter et al., I can tell you this can conceivably go on for years. They will wait you out. This sort of thing, IMO, is what wikipedia is for.DianaW 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In her first personal attack against me back in November, prior to my having had any interactions with her, User:DianaW accused me of racism, and made it clear that as far as she is concerned, only a racist would include such material in the entry. And true to that form, she now says that only a "bunch of racist zealots" would want the truth to be known. Thus, all of her other claims are mere window-dressing.

Her claims that "it's unlikely the attackers knew she was Nadine Gordimer," and "there's no evidence that the attackers cared about their victim's skin color," are plainly ludicrous. Gordimer is the most famous person in the neighborhood, a years-long (implicitly at best, explicitly, at worst) state-supported campaign was already underway of blacks targeting whites for robberies and assaults, and a more recent, second campaign of state-supported black-on-white genocide was also already underway.

Her assertion that "a bunch of racist zealots are determined to hang on for months, if not years, to make sure people reading the wikipedia article on Nadine Gordimer will know that she was once robbed and beaten by black people.... They will wait you out," is as pure an example of projection as I have yet to see. Of course in DianaW's case, she is hanging on to make sure people reading the wikipedia article on Nadine Gordimer will NOT know that she was once robbed and beaten by black people."

If there is an issue, it would probably be racism -- both the criminals' racism in targeting Gordimer and other people, simply for being white, and DianaW's racism, in defending the criminals and attacking anyone who would honestly report on the crime.

70.23.199.239 06:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seventy writes: "User:DianaW accused me of racism, and made it clear that as far as she is concerned, only a racist would include such material in the entry. And true to that form, she now says that only a "bunch of racist zealots" would want the truth to be known. Thus, all of her other claims are mere window-dressing." That's true, basically, and this is why (ironically? hey, you like irony) I really have no greater interest in "mediation" than you do. Yes, it's largely game playing here. There are a variety of legitimate reasons why the material on the attack probably doesn't belong in the article in any form, but especially not with the race of the attackers pointed to specifically in the absence of any indication of its relevance (other than your opinion, which is indeed racist, apparently unapologetically so). And there are a thousand angles either side can try for making their points stick or the other side cry uncle (for instance, I can reply to your claim that my claim - that they didn't know she was Nadine Gordimer - is ludicrous by simply saying, Find a source, then, that says the perpetrators knew the identity of their victim, which you can't, or you'd have done so by now, and thus you lose that point. (You just think it's obvious they knew who she was, because you think it's obvious that blacks "ironically" attack even nice white people who help them. You're unable to recognize that as your racist bias. The attackers almost certainly had no idea who she was, or if they knew she was some famous writer, they just thought, Good, she's probably rich). But I basically agree with you that this is game playing, and I don't do well here because I'm not interested in the games. I definitely think you're a racist, and I don't do a very good job negotiating or compromising with racists, and if I say this stuff in mediation, I'll hurt the side I agree with in the mediation. Whichever viewpoint "wins" here is largely a matter of who games the system the best, refrains from errors that cost "points" even though their viewpoint is the substantively correct one, flatters the right admin(s), and/or has the stamina to wait out the other side. I certainly don't.DianaW 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• See comments below regarding next steps. --lquilter 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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."[5] Yakuman (数え役満) 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the inordinate waste of time. My efforts to research and write about her works to make this more than a stub article have been significantly hindered by the edit warring that 70.32* and more recently Yakuman have done over this one paragraph about a 6-month old assault that has merited, in all the writings of all the world that I have seen cited or found myself, only a few very short AP-style news articles in the biggest newspapers, and one editorial. --lquilter 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Current edit

The Andyparkerson edit [6] 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)

In response to Yakuman above: If you think this is a hagiography, feel free to write and cite critiques of Gordimer's works or her political activism; it should be no problem to do so. Regardless, I fail to see what relevance discussion of Gordimer has to discussions of a 6-month old minor assault and attributes of her assailants. --lquilter 14:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

You can sign on at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer. --lquilter 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

mentioning race in Gordimer's statement

quotes are sacred. pls do not word her statement to mean something she did not say. Doldrums 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that we keep editing this back and forth show that mediation is needed? Mediation is non-binding, and simply gives an outside perspective to this. Please get on board, and agree to mediation. Andyparkerson 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

note that this is not about whether the race of the robbers are mentioned, this is about the wording Gordimer's statement to read as if she mentioned the race of the attackers, something that is simply untrue. Doldrums 10:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In re: mediation: I'll do it if 70 does it, which, sad to say, is a tad difficult. He's been shouted at since the start, yet some people are startled when he shouts back. In 2007, in the English-speaking world, accusations of racism should not be taken lightly. So 70's irritation is justified, IMHO. Besides, there's nothing wrong with mentioning that black perps robbed Nadine Gordimer and her maid. Somebody's been trying to censor eleven words for six months. Isn't there a more constructive activity? Yakuman (数え役満) 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As for 70.23.* being "shouted at" with "accusations of racism", I responded on his talk page (diff) since it's about his conduct. See also User_talk:Lquilter/NG7023history for links to full and relevant history. --lquilter 13:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"there's nothing wrong with mentioning that black perps robbed Nadine Gordimer and her maid". attributes like race or religion shld be mentioned only when they are relevant to the situation described, and not otherwise. we've repeatedly asked what the relevance of the race is, and the answers have not been good enough to merit inclusion. "i think it's ironic" is patently not reason enough to include material in an encyclopedia, "RW Whatsisname thinks its ironic" is better, but still falls short - this is the opinion of one non-notable correspondent, three other correspondents do not report any such irony, neither have any notable people.

if u believe that the race is noteworthy in reporting this incident, find sources establishing that something more than a tiny-minority share your view, and then find a way to report on the incident that gives this group's view the space proportional to their significance, and ditto for other views, all the while ensuring that this incident gets the relative coverage in the article that it deserves. Doldrums 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to Doldrums' comment: In wikipedia, the onus is on those seeking inclusion of material to support and justify its relevance, notability, etc. See WP:N (notability) ... WP:NOT#IINFO (wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; especially "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."). --lquilter 12:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

next steps?

Given that 70.23* declined mediation (see User talk:70.23.199.239) (and in any case is banned for a month for incivility) I'm going to guess that this mediation is not going to go forward. Moreover Yakuman, who could still change his mind, has said several times now that he wouldn't do mediation unless 70.23.* did. So what's the next step in resolving the content dispute on the Nadine Gordimer page? Arbitration? --lquilter 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The next step is for you to apologize and retract your spurious charges of racism. Then stop the pointless edit war you carry on based on it. You can't just censor people because you disagree with them. That includes removal of sourced material for political and POV reasons. Nor can you smear others, thereby trying to discredit them through guilt-by-association with notorious political extremists.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, not a propaganda machine and not a battleground. Editors must not engage in inappropriately focusing their attention on a controversial and knowledgeable expert who is also a fellow Wikipedia editor. Please extend respect and forgiveness to users such as 70.23.199.239‎ who may share the burden of being notable enough to have his work cited in Wikipedia.

I strongly advise that you approach this in a more cooperative manner than has been exhibited to date. Should you do so, your contributions and collaboration will be much appreciated.

Yakuman (数え役満) 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yakuman, (a) these weird cut-and-pastes that you do of earlier editors' comments to you mixed with homilies about 70.23* frankly sometimes make so little sense that I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not. Your commentary about 70.23* is surreal.

(b) As I already said, I never called 70.23* a racist, although I did say that he was deliberately putting in material with obvious racial implications to make a racist point. I think you're bright enough to grasp the distinction between "you are a racist" and "you are making a racist point". 70.23* has called me a racist outright and generally used abusive and hostile language multiple times over. I should have taken him to an administrator intervention back in early December, but I was unfamiliar with policy; reluctant to invoke coercive procedures; and honestly trying to dialog with him. At any rate, I have no intention of having further discussions with you about 70.23.*. I don't owe him an apology, and I certainly don't owe you an apology as his agent. I'm not sure why you have taken it upon yourself to defend someone who is so obviously, outrageously, uncivil and frankly verbally abusive. But I am under no obligation to deal with you as 70.23.*'s agent.

(c) Please stay civil and refrain from making bizarre and unfounded allegations (like "edit war", "censorship", "smearing", "discrediting", etc.).

(d) If you would like to speak on your own behalf, then please do; you have a dog in this race, too, because you make plenty of edits on your own behalf. I, Doldrums, and Andyparkerson are all open to mediation. Since you continue to edit on these pages, it would be nice if you would be open to the dispute resolution process, and I urge you to reconsider your position on it.

--lquilter 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my clear view that this entry does not require mediation. Rather, it requires enforcement of policy. Violations of BLP, especially in conjunction with violations of NOR and NPOV, must not be tolerated. Please see section "BLP and notability" below for elaboration of this issue. FNMF 06:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP and notability

The issue of BLP and notability is quite simple. In a biographical entry, notability means notability in relation to the subject of the entry. If that notability cannot be established, the rule, as stated in WP:BLP, is quite clear: "Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out." The example given in BLP policy is that of a messy divorce: if notability cannot be established, leave it out. Notability does not mean that it was mentioned in a newspaper article. It means a lot more than that. The race of those who attacked the subject of this entry is clearly and definitely not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. It should not be included unless several reliable and legitimate secondary sources not only mention it, but argue for the notability of this fact. As it stands, the way this event is described is utterly unencyclopaedic. Do not confuse WP:BLP and censorship. FNMF 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no issue that it is sourced. A group of editors decided that mentioning that black perps robbed Nadine Gordimer is a "racist" edit. They've been disrupting Wikipedia for months about this, even trying to get their opponents banned. Waving a bloody shirt about an editor's "racism" is beyond the pale in contemporary English-speaking society. It also violates the spirit of good editing practices on Wikipedia. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the section in line with the above remarks about official BLP policy. It contains everything about the attack which can be established as notable. DO NOT REPLACE MATERIAL ABOUT THE RACE OF THE ATTACKERS UNLESS SEVERAL RELIABLE AND LEGITIMATE SECONDARY SOURCES CAN BE FOUND WHICH ARGUE FOR THE NOTABILITY OF THIS FACT TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ENTRY. There is indeed an issue with notability. Again: mention of the race of the attackers does not establish the notability of that fact for the subject of this entry. FNMF 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Try not to put your caps lock on like this, since it looks like shouting. Thanks. Yakuman (数え役満) 04:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if my capital letters offended your tender sensibilities, but in a situation where flagrant BLP violations have been ongoing for months due to the committed efforts of some editors, clarity is called for. I repeat again: notability must be established in relation to the subject of the entry. This does not mean notability in relation to the political or sociological situation in South Africa. It means notability in relation to Gordimer. And establishing notability means providing several legitimate and reliable secondary sources arguing for and establishing this notability in relation to Gordimer. This has not been done. You are entitled to believe that the race of Gordimer's attackers is notable in relation to Gordimer's life: what you should do, then, is write an article explaining this and have it published in a legitimate and reliable secondary source. Then other editors at Wikipedia can read your article and consider it as a reference. Failing that, if you do not have legitimate and reliable secondary sources establishing that the race of the attackers is notable, then repeatedly inserting this information is a refusal to follow the BLP policy which insists on editing biographical entries sensitively. It furthermore shows clear evidence of POV-pushing. Anybody who may be POV-pushing on a BLP entry should immediately recuse themselves from editing that entry. To ignore this comment is to extend oneself an invitation to consequences. FNMF 05:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article is cited with mainstream, reliable sources. We are here to build an encyclopedia that is freely constructed and available. We are not here to make a point about censoring the race of criminals or fighting nonexistent racists. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that black perps robbed Nadine Gordimer and her maid. Verified statement in a reliable source. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yakuman, you clearly do not understand that notability must be established FOR THE SUBJECT OF THE ENTRY. NO sources have been provided establishing that notability. Notability does not mean in relation to anything external to the subject of the entry, such as South African society, but rather explicitly means in relation to the subject of the entry. Without legitimate secondary sources establishing that, you are POV-pushing. Furthermore, the sensitivity and conservatism requirements of WP:BLP make clear that material must not be included unless it is clear that notability has been established. Your refusal to conform to policy even where it has been explicitly pointed out is now clear. FNMF 05:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not refusing anything, The material is based on reliable sources. It's accurate and relevant. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH MENTIONING THAT BLACK PERPS ROBBED NADINE GORDIMER AND HER MAID. You can't simply declare verified facts not notable by fiat. Yakuman (数え役満) 06:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not declaring that the race of the attackers is not notable. I am declaring that you have provided no legitimate and reliable secondary sources arguing and establishing that the race of the attackers is notable in relation to Gordimer herself. Not one word you have written addresses this crucial point, which I have made several times. No matter how many times you declare that it is not wrong to mention a fact, that does not mean you have established sufficient grounds for mentioning that fact in an entry about a living person. You have not done so. You are clearly POV-pushing, and you should cease editing this entry altogether. FNMF 06:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I am not active in any political party or public policy organization. Please do not assume that my edits represent an agenda. I am committed to maintaining a neutral point of view in all articles I edit. I am also determined to defend my reputation and integrity.

The material is based on reliable sources, is accurate and relevant per RS and BLP. The real issue here is that mentioning black perps is "racist" and anyone who mentions black perps is a "racist." I realize you are a new editor, but you seem to be trying to confuse the issue with an apriorism. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that black perps robbed Nadine Gordimer and her maid. Yakuman (数え役満) 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether you are a member of any organisation has nothing to do with whether you are POV-pushing. Writing "Gordimer writes about the sufferings of blacks; in this case they were the perpetrators" carries an inference that the race of her attackers is relevant to her writing. That inference is the only sentence which does anything to establish notability in relation to Gordimer. But that inference is not supported by legitimate secondary sources. It is supported only by a passing remark in an article about the attack. Given the lack of sources, the sentence you wrote constitutes original research. And given that that sentence was the only sentence which (even implicitly) attempted to establish notability in relation to Gordimer, therefore notability of the race of the attackers has certainly not been established. And given that you nevertheless make the inference, you are pushing a point of view, regardless of how neutral you imagine yourself to be. I have said nothing about racism, and don't intend to. The "real issue here" is violation of policy. FNMF 06:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're disputing whether race is relevant to Gordimer's writing. Since much of her work is about racial oppression in South Africa, that seems obvious. Yakuman (数え役満) 06:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing whether race is relevant to Gordimer's writing; I am disputing whether any sources establish the notability of the race of her attackers for her writing. It may be "obvious" to you, but that does not mean it is supported by sources. You have provided no evidence for such support, other than a passing remark in an article about the attack. If you believe it is obvious, you need to go and write an article explaining the connection, have it published in a reliable source, and hope that editors will refer to your article when editing Wikipedia. You should not be making the argument in this encyclopaedia. The fact you consider the notability obvious, despite being unable to provide sufficient sources, is further evidence of your POV-pushing. FNMF 06:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I note for the record that Yakuman has not even attempted to address the central issue: that notability for a BLP entry means providing several legitimate and reliable sources establishing the notability of the fact for the subject of the entry. Until and unless this central issue is addressed, the race of the attackers must be considered a non-notable fact, and as such it must be deleted from the entry without requiring further discussion. Editors must be prepared to address WP:BLP concerns; to be unwilling to do so reflects very poorly on the editor's contribution. FNMF 07:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand. BLP does not say "several legitimate and reliable sources." On the other hand, an ’’article's’’ subject is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject itself. Gordimer is notable. Nobody denies that. The race of the attackers is not questioned as a verified fact. Yakuman (数え役満) 07:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have explained this more times than is necessary. But let me explain it one more time. WP:BLP states explicitly that entries about living persons must be edited with sensitivity and conservatively, and that entries should not be "controversial in tone." Sensitivity, conservatism, and avoidance of controversy have been clearly neglected at this entry. WP:BLP is not intended to ensure that only notable individuals receive entries; it is intended to ensure that BLP entries only contain attributable and notable information about the subject of the entry. Notable means notable in relation to the entry. Thus WP:BLP also explicitly demands strict adherence to WP:ATT, which includes strict adherence to WP:NOR. NOR demands that material not be included that advances an interpretation of facts (see here, where NOR forbids introducing an "analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article"). Asserting a connection between the race of Gordimer's attackers and her writing is an interpretation, and therefore cannot be stated in the entry without sufficient sources. In the case we are dealing with here, there is another important reason that the notability of the fact in question must be established, in order to warrant inclusion in the entry. The reason this notability must be established is because reporting the fact in the entry is considered by numerous editors to be controversial and insensitive. This is sufficient reason to demand evidence of notability. Thus the question is how to establish the notability of the fact, and the question is not whether the fact is verifiable. Establishing the notability of the fact means providing substantial evidence for that notability (and I say again, notability in relation to the topic of the article, that is, in relation to Gordimer herself). Where a fact is not considered of great relevance to a person's life by any secondary sources, an encyclopaedia is not the place to assert that relevance. One passing reference in a newspaper article about the attack does not establish this notability sufficiently to warrant inclusion in the entry. If you have other evidence establishing this notabililty in legitimate secondary sources, please provide it on the talk page for evaluation by editors, so that it can be sensitively and conservatively included in the article, if there is consensus to do so. Until that time, there are no grounds for inclusion of this fact, however verifiable. I hope this clarifies the policy situation once and for all. FNMF 08:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Full protection

This article has been protected from editing for one week. Recommend an article content WP:RFC to bring in fresh opinions. Durova^Charge! 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting the wife and kids, packing up the SUV and hitting the road. See you back in seven. :-)

Yakuman (数え役満) 08:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I did an article content WP:RFC back in December when this first happened, and all of the editors who came in felt the race of the assailants was not notable. See RFC diff and Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 (RFC comments are unfortunately scattered throughout because contents weren't refactored yet. Sprotch, Doldrums, Taxico, and Skaptur came in on the RFC and all thought it was not notable. Nobody who came in on the RFC thought it was notable.) --lquilter 13:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to establish a broader consensus it might be worth running that request again. It only takes a few moments to open the RFC. Durova^Charge! 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to get to that today or tomorrow. --lquilter 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done. (diff) --lquilter 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfinished Edits

Doldrums

saving my version here, because of protection. Doldrums 08:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On October 26, 2006, Gordimer was attacked and robbed in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, but was not seriously wounded.^[3] The high profile robbery drew attention to the contentious debate over violent crime in South Africa.^[4] Gordimer said the men responsible were a product of a society grappling with the legacy of South Africa's past and suggested that providing education, training and employment was the way to reduce crime, not recruiting more police.^[2]

• Doldrums, did Gordimer use the term gang? I didn't see that in the article. Maybe "Gordimer said the robbery was the result of a society..." ?--lquilter 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

u're right, she referred to "the robbers". Doldrums 06:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing Material

• The Roberts Bio section is missing the last sentence:

Roberts, a controversial black author, had criticized her as a hypocritical white liberal with a paternalistic attitude toward blacks.^[5]

• Here's the unexpurgated crime story:

On October 26, 2006, the 83-year-old Gordimer was robbed in her home in Parktown,^[3] near the crime-ridden urban center of Johannesburg,^[6] then assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring. ^[2] Gordimer later said four black men attacked her, taking the ring, plus cash and car keys. ^[6] Neither she nor her 66-year-old domestic worker was seriously injured, after being locked in a storeroom for 30 minutes before their rescue by private security. ^[2] This sort of black-on-white crime has become a daily occurrence in South Africa.,^[1],

While Gordimer’s books focus on blacks as victims under apartheid, in this situation they were the perpetrators.^[3] She said the gang responsible was the product of a society grappling with the legacy of South Africa's past.^[2] Gordimer suggested that providing education, training and employment was the way to reduce crime, not recruiting more police.^[2] The daytime robbery^[7] was one of a series of attacks on prominent South Africans, both black and white, that intensified that country’s political debate about crime. ^[4]

(Enjoy your vacation!) Yakuman (数え役満) 08:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually it appears from the Washington Post article that the Gordimer attack was less known; it's not reported as one of the high-profile attacks that intensified the debate, but one of two lesser incidents that also got coverage. I have no problem with mentioning that Johannesburg is in a crime wave (and included that information in one of my compromise drafts. diff --lquilter 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to stick to policy here. Whether Johannesberg is experiencing a crime wave is not a notable fact in relation to the subject of this entry, therefore it should not be included. If people are interested in Johannesberg, that is the entry they should go to for such information. By opening the door to some facts not notable in relation to the subject of the entry, it becomes very difficult to argue against the inclusion of particular non-notable facts. Only by adhering to policy consistently can policy in fact be maintained. If compromise means a compromise with policy, it will not produce desirable outcomes, even if it seems at first glance to lessen conflict. The state of Johannesberg society is no more notable than the race of the attackers, and therefore should be excluded unless and until sufficient evidence of that notability can be provided and agreed upon by a consensus of editors. A change of tack is required here, if months of further fruitless conflict is to be avoided. It can be avoided, but only by relentlessly sticking to policy. FNMF 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and don't disagree. This does reflect my original stance: That the incident was incredibly minor, receiving only a few scanty mentions in news articles; that the race was completely not shown to be notable; and that the "irony" comment was simply an editorial POV. However, under constant edit-warring from 70.23* and more recently Yakuman, my compromise position (largely following Andyparkerson's suggested compromise) has been generally that it's okay to mention the incident. I will note that with all the "details" that people keep trying to add in, the incident really begins to assume undue weight, even without the unnecessary details about the assailants' ethnicity. --lquilter 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the cheetah is the fastest land animal. This is a fact, but you wouldn't mention it the Gordimer article. Why not? Because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Whether something is a fact or not is not what determines whether it should be included in an entry or not. Notability in relation to the subject is what determines that. And for BLP entries, where controversy is involved, it is very important not to include facts unless there is sufficient supporting sources establishing the notability of the fact for the subject of the entry. Even facts that seem non-controversial, such as discussion of the crime situation in Johannesberg. It is because editors do not pay sufficient attention to this aspect of BLP policy that they wind up arguing about the wrong things with disruptive editors for months on end. I strongly urge adhering to this principle in order to resolve this problem. This will prove more effective than any mediation process, so long as editors enforce the policy. FNMF 14:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reflist

"viewpoints" tag

Yakuman added a viewpoints template tag, citing "Systemic bias; too admiring; little critical disscussion; what exists has been edit warred for months; see talk" in his edit summary, but didn't actually tell anybody what his issues were here on the talk page. So I'm trying to lay out the issues he alluded to so they can be addressed. --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"systemic bias"

• could he please elaborate, since I'm not sure what he's getting at. --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"too admiring"

Actually, there's very little content in there about her glowing prose, her fabulous activism, etc.; it's a pretty dry narrative. so i'm not sure what this means. --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"little critical disscussion" (sic)

• Again, IMO there's little positive discussion, either; just the facts. --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"what exists has been edit warred for months"

• The only thing that has been edit warred has been the info about the assault, which is hardly "critical discussion", so that makes this statement wrong and/or confusing --lquilter 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC (April, 2007) on robbery

Per Durova's suggestion above, I am posting a request for comments (RFC) on RFC Bios page. (diff) This is what I'm posting, which is a modified version of the one I posted on Dec. 2, 2006.

The Nadine Gordimer article has been the subject of an edit/revert war regarding one paragraph of text. The controversial text is a reference to an Oct., 2006, robbery of Gordimer's home, which includes the race of the perpetrators and a quote stating that it is "ironic" that Gordimer was attacked by 3 black men, given Gordimer's anti-apartheid position. Third-party comments greatly appreciated at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#RFC (April, 2007) on robbery.

For RFC editors, the shortest available summary is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Nadine_Gordimer which just asks the questions without citing any policies. A quick scan over the contents of any of the archives or the current talk page will give you the basic arguments, which have been repeate ad nauseum for 5 months. --lquilter 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)