Talk:Ayelet Waldman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chabon's "Pages" interview[edit]

Seems to me that Chabon's criticism of bloggers' reactions to the "Motherlove" essay is more pertinent than discussion of his "torrid" sex life. I left in the direct quote that Professorkemp added, but question the deletion of his opinions of the "slagosphere."129.186.159.110 22:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bio[edit]

The bio says "Her work unites a powerful sense of outrage and social injustice with a playful and self-deprecating sense of humor." Oh, please - no one but Ayelet Waldman herself would have written this.

The IP address of the person who wrote that sentence in the original article (63.13.224.50) originates in Novato, CA, which is less than 30 miles from Berkeley. (cf. geobytes.com)

Grow up.[edit]

How many hundreds of thousands of people are there living in and around Novato. Doubtless at least a few of them are friends of Ms. Waldman. Her editor or agent might have rewritten it. Why cast the implied aspersion on Waldman's integrity, except from personal animus.

With all the media attention that Wikipedia is getting, it's not surprising that people are inclined to "fix" their own articles - there's not necessarily anything sinister about it. But if Waldman has edited this article, then we need to add the "notable wikipedian" tag to this discussion page. Saranary 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up, Ayelet[edit]

It goes against Wikipedia rules to use it for your self-promotion. P

"Pages"[edit]

"Newsworthy"? But agree. Fixed characterisation of his remarks.

Clarity needed[edit]

The last sentence in the Judaism section ends with

". . ., she did not celebrate becoming a Bat Mitzvah.[1]"

Does this mean that a) she did not go through the ritual known as a bat mitzvah, or b) that she did go through it but did not feel joyful about it? Someone knowledgeable should fix this, or else remove it entirely. (This article seems to include far too many minutiae about the life of its subject.)Daqu (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayelet Inflation[edit]

I'm puzzled by this long, rather adulatory, obsessively detailed article about a minor writer. It would be interesting to know exactly who wrote it. Friends, relatives, admirers of Michael Chabon? Wikipedia needs to exercise safeguards against articles so pumped up by delusions about their subject's importance that they appear comical. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found it interesting, well-referenced, etc. The writer has over 300,000 ghits. The way we guard against problems is requiring references. Beyond that, one's subjective view as to whether a 3,000-ghit writer is unimportant is of no greater weight than the subjective view of a contrary writer ... as long as the refs are there.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chabon has over 2,170,000 ghits. Hemingway has 41,800,000. Waldman's article, puffed up by a gassy and sometimes dubious assortment of every column, interview, review,squib, or insulting assessment ever written about her (your "references"), takes up almost as much space as her husband's; and is not a mile away from Hemingway's. It's not subjective to suggest that a certain folie de grandeur is operating here. And I repeat that it would be interesting to know who wrote the article, and is vetting it with such jealous attention. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to, if you have RS material, fill out their bios further. There is no deadline. The key to saving the Project from subjective "I don't think this person is sufficiently important to warrant this coverage" arguments is that we require RS sourcing. This article appears to be quite well sourced. I didn't have a hand at all in what you object to, but I think it's fine and well within the policies of the project. Sometimes a writer may attract attention from a great fan, and we end up the recipient of a well-written and extensive article. That's great. As long as it is accurate, the sourcing is RS, and it is well-written. We don't in such circumstances say delete RS-supported references and attending text because one or more of us thinks "this writer is lesser than writer x, and should therefore have a shorter article." If you think anything incorrectly cites a source, for example, feel free to address that. But as to the meta issue, though I understand your view the approach of the Project is as I describe. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with User:Epeefleche that I don't think there's any significant problem here. If you have specific examples of excessive detail, or non-neutral or nonverified content, you can post them here, or you can try editing those areas and see if there's any objection. But as Epeefleche said, Wikipedia does not support arbitrarily shortening the article so that the size is proportional to your estimation of the topic's value. (For the record, I have never read any of Waldman's work nor have any particular interest in her. The person who originally drafted this article probably was a fan, or maybe just someone interested in her as a subject. It's irrelevant.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the person who drafted this article, and obsessively sculpted it, is certainly a faniac if not Waldman's mother, Waldman herself, or some other close blood relative. And although the article is an unusually egregious case of clapping a very large hat on a very small head, I understand your viewpoint. Wikipedia is a big tent; and emperors prancing around without clothes have their place, just like everyone else. Younggoldchip (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the majority of this article, but I have not "vetted" it since (I don't know what that means, in this context). And I don't know what "sculpted" means either, I'm pretty sure I've never sculpted anything. I like Waldman's writing, but am not fanatical about it or her. I have never met her or anyone she knows. Surely all articles about living writers are written by their fans - who else would bother to do such a thing? Feel free to omit overly personal details - I enjoy finding out the details of the lives of those who specialise in personal essays and I thought others might also. Why else would they be looking up an article about her?

I struggle to understand the mind of a person who would look up an entry about someone in whom they have no interest (indeed, someone whom they appear to dislike intensely) and, finding that it is a long entry, endure the hardship of reading the whole thing and then take the time to complain about it. I'm pretty sure that the article about Kim Kardashian is longer than the one for Mother Teresa, which is probably a bad thing, but I have not read Kim's entry, because I have no interest in reading about her. Also, if I were to stumble upon it by accident or as a result of someone putting a gun to my head, I would not read it through to the the end.

I do detect a hint of envy toward someone who has made a career as a writer without being either a Chabon or a Hemingway.Ethel&bobby (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel&Bobby, thank you for answering my question. I wondered why anyone except a blood relative or close friend would write such a long, obsessively detailed, and adulatory piece in Wikipedia about a minor writer. You have described yourself as a passionate fan. There is nothing the matter with that. It is not illegal or immoral. And of course it explains the tone and length of your article. The problem comes when you expect others to share your enthusiasm when this doesn't seem reasonable to them. You asked why I read your article through to the end when I don't admire your subject. I use Wikipedia as a source of information, and also take pleasure in a well-written, well-balanced piece. I don't have to like or admire the human subject. Sometimes I run across an article which is a genuine psychological curiosity. It is as though the writer has somehow fallen in love with her subject, and accomplishments which might seem forgettable or dubious to others have an adorable shimmer in her eyes. In these cases I wonder if there's a personal relationship, or if the writer has fomented this admiration from afar, as in courtly love. This emotional response to a stranger is a mystery. But mysteries are fascinating. One more thing: I think you're mistaken that I would ever envy a writer who's managed to make a living from it. I just read the article on Paulo Coelho, and was struck by the attacks on this rather good writer. Apparently what some of the Commenters really couldn't endure about him was his success; and that seems shameful to me. Younggoldchip (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your kind words. A few points. 1. I described myself as a fan. You added the "passionate" to that. 2. You repeatedly refer to my work as "adulatory". Could you name for me one sentence of the article that you regard as adulatory? Omit anything that you do not believe to be objectively true or that has not been verified by a footnote. 3. In what way is the tone of this article non-neutral? Give examples. 4.You state that I expect others to share my enthusiasm. Aren't you, by whining about the length of my work, expecting others (me) to share your contempt for the author? 5. I am a straight woman, so I can assure you that I am not "in love" (courtly or otherwise) with this other uber-straight woman. 6. I am also a little offended to be called a "psychological curiosity" because I wrote an article with personal details about a writer who specialises in PERSONAL ESSAYS. I can assure you I am not crazy. 7. The WIKI in Wikipedia stands for What I Know. I wrote what I know, not what you would like to know. 8. If you don't like it, fix it up. Don't insult and belittle someone who is just trying to make a small contribution to a collaborative effort.Ethel&bobby (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

l. and 2. I can answer your first two points together. The length of your article, with its references and quotes and detailed history of the subject, must have taken a great deal of your time and effort. There was some motive force which drove this project. It is most likely that you're a passionate fan of Waldman's work, or you would not have bothered. And I am not using the word "passionate" to indicate anything untoward, unseemly, sexual, or weird. As for my former description of the article as "adulatory," I had in mind your including, with complete seriousness, references from sources which some might consider slight or dubious. 3. The non-neutral tone of the article is implicit. For example, you calmly, approvingly report that Waldman and Chabon criticize each other's work on terms of complete equality, and quote Waldman as saying that not a line leaves the house that hasn't been gone through with a fine-tooth comb. Let's think about that for a minute. Since you're talking about a decent journeywoman mystery writer and novelist (I don't agree that she's known best for her essays, except possibly to people who don't read much)and Chabon is one of the finest novelists of his generation, doesn't anything about this arrangement strike you as odd? 4. I'm not whining about the length of your article. I'm pointing it out as an anomaly. Nor do I expect you to agree with me, nor do I care if you don't. 5. "Courtly love" is basically non-sexual. It's a fascination with another, or another's work. I won't venture a guess as to why you leaped to the conclusion that I was calling you gay. 6. Somebody who questions the balance and treatment in your article is not calling you crazy. And if you don't think that virtually everyone is capable of psychological curiosities, you've lived a sheltered life indeed. 7. I don't change other people's articles, and I think that most pages should be protected just to preserve the purity, or oddity, or brilliance, or outrageousness of the writer's work. I do believe in a very vigorous Talk section. In regard to your article, I'd like to remind you that you did choose to present your work in a huge public forum. To whine at the result shows a lack of mental toughness. Younggoldchip (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young -- the length of your comments, if we adopt your approach, suggest that you are obsessively and passionately anti-Waldman. Are you her husband? Seriously -- enough already. No need to pour cold water on editors who donate their time to add appropriate information to articles. Or engage in personal attacks, but characterizing the above response to you by the editor as "whining." If you think something else is more important, go work on editing an article on that person in similarly appropriate fashion. We're all volunteers here. This isn't Encyclopedia Britannica. If a writers attracts an interested editor, a fulsome article will result. Don't measure the completeness of this article, against the non-completeness of an editor you prefer, and complain about the editor who voluntarily does good work. That's not helpful. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, I was answering the woman's eight (sigh) points, or accusations, as clearly as I could. She'd misinterpreted my original, very mild comments, and came flailing back with various charges and too much personal information altogether. (What am I to make of her proud claim that she, like Waldman, is "uber-straight"?) I answered her honestly. One can do no more. Younggoldchip (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can drop the stick.Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will if she will. Younggoldchip (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read? I pointed out that I did not say I was a "passionate" fan. You did. The fact that you can define the word passionate does not mean that I used it. Do you know the meaning of words that you use? Do you know what "adulatory" means? How can citing a source be adulatory (ie showing excessively praise)? You did not explain why you think my work is adulatory. Do you know what "netural" means? How can citing what someone said in an interview be considered non-neutral? Do you know what "calmly" means? You state tht I "calmly, approvingly report" matters. How can you tell from reading something how calm I was when I typed it? Do you know what "approvingly report" means? How can repeating something that someone has said repeatedly in interviews be "approving"? How do you know that I approve? Do you know what "courtly love" is? Do you really understand it to be non-sexual? If so, you are add odds with thousands of years of literature. Do you know what "sexual" means? How can you say that being in love "(courtly or otherwise)" is non-sexual? Do you know what "gay" means? How can saying that a woman is in love with another woman (to whom she is not related) not be considered to be calling the woman gay? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Do you know what "curiosity" means? How can every person alive be a curiosity? Aren't things curious because of their rarity? Do you know what "whining" means? How can defending yourself from unsolicited abuse be whining? Do you know what "this other .... woman" means? I did not say I was uber-straight. I said Waldman (this other woman) was, not me. I can assure you I do not boast of my successes in that particular area. Do you know what "uber" means? How can a woman who constant talks about her sex life (with a man) not be considered uber-straight? (A joke, by the way.)Do you know what "accusation" and "charges" mean? How can making points to defend onself be an accusation? Do you know what "flailing" means? How did you know I was flailing when I typed? Do you know what "very mild" means? You say your initial comments were very mild: how can the expressions "so pumped up by delusions about their subject's importance that they appear comical" and "puffed up by a gassy and sometimes dubious assortment" and "folie de grandeur" and "unusually egregious case of clapping a very large hat on a very small head" and "emperors prancing around without clothes" be characterised as very mild? If that is you being mild, I would not like to be on the receiving end of anything you consider harsh. Do you know what "vetted" and "sculpted" mean? You still did not explain how I did either.

The best thing about the internet is that people can share their knowledge and interests with others. The worst thing about the internet is that people can be unkind to others for no reason, hiding behing anonymity to say things they would never dare say in person. [User:Ethel&bobby|Ethel&bobby]] (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article is intrinsically problematic. Is there an issue with the way it's referenced? I know a little about Ethel&bobby's editing, and believe they are in good faith. Tony (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel&Bobby, you don't know me very well if you suppose I would not have dared to say the same things in person. I would have said them, and more. Nor did you directly answer a single question I asked. (For example, do you consider it peculiar that Waldman and Chabon should be editing each other's work on equal terms?)Instead you attempted to obscure them in a sort of squid-like black ink of bombastic outrage. Read your last post if you're not sure what I mean. This is not discussion. It's your attempt to batter someone into submission (silence), and her refusal to stand still for it. Epeefleche, I think it's time for you to step up and gently suggest to Ethel&bobby that perhaps she should drop the stick and slowly back away... Younggoldchip (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest that everyone drop the stick and stay away from this conversation. Including responding to irrelevant questions as to whether it is peculiar for two authors, married to each other, to edit each other's work. This is not a forum. Everyone -- time to just go home. Nothing more in this string worth commenting on.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Ayelet Waldman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ayelet Waldman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ayelet Waldman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayelet_Waldman&oldid=1207671587"