Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 5

"toofewopinions" template removed
Someone involved on this page because of an earlier dispute had posted a "toofewopinions" template (diff), but did not post any suggestions or discussion on the talk page. I started a discussion on the talk page raising the issue, and trying to address what I took to be that person's concerns (as based on their edit summary (diff). Neither that person nor anyone else ever added or responded, and the material got archived (diff).  Nobody else has raised or responded to that template, so I removed it. --lquilter 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial material must not be re-placed
After extensive discussion, now archived, numerous editors have made clear their view that controversial material that is non-notable in relation to the subject of this entry must not be included. This material violates WP:BLP and WP:NOR. Editors must not re-place this material without first establishing a consensus of well-established editors that the material can be included. No such consensus has been established. Until that occurs, this material MUST be excluded from the entry. FNMF 17:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop misrepresenting WP rules, the notability of a traumatic incident, falsely claiming that I am "re-placing [sic] controversial material,” and misrepresenting the history of this article. I violated neither WP:BLP nor WP:NOR, and there was no consensus for your censorship. In fact, there was a consensus for the paragraph which I restored, and which by the way, I hadn’t even written (User:Andyparkerson did!). You are simply seeking to politically strongarm me and anyone else who would include vital information which you, based on your own race-political POV, want suppressed. In the same spirit, you have invented a rule of your own, whereby only “well-established editors” – i.e., editors who share your race politics, may edit the article.

“the majority of editors opposed inclusion of the material on the grounds it violated WP:BLP and WP:NOR.”


 * False. Not even the editors who opposed including the material ever claimed that. They claimed including the material would be “racist.”

“The editor is well aware that numerous editors view inclusion as a policy violation,”


 * False.

“but this editor continues to reintroduce the material without attempting to establish any consensus to do so.


 * False.

“The editor in my opinion has a clear bias that ought to prevent them from editing these entries. FNMF 17:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)”


 * Projection. You simply want anyone who does not share your race politics to be blocked from editing.


 * The closest thing to a consensus was arrived in the following discussion on April 8, 2007, and even then, it was a matter of 3-2 in support of the version that you insist on censoring (Andyparkerson, Yakuman, and me in support; Lquilter and Doldrums opposed). Note that I had predicted that User:Andyparkerson would wait out the other editors who wanted the material on the robbery and assault included, and censor his own proposed compromise proposal, and he did! (And he just did it again.) That may be a first at WP.


 * 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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadine_Gordimer&oldid=120968817|edit

The neutrality of this section is disputed.

Please see the discussion on the Talk:Nadine_Gordimer page.

Gordimer was the subject of a 2006 biography by Ronald Suresh Roberts, which she repudiated after its publication.[16]

On October 26, Gordimer was robbed in her home in the Parktown suburb, then assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring.[17] Gordimer and her domestic worker were locked in a storeroom during the daytime attack. Neither she nor her domestic worker were seriously injured. Accounts differ on whether it was three or four black men who robbed and assaulted her.[18] [17]

Gardimer later said the men responsible were products 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.<sup id="_ref-guardian_2_1" class="reference"><a href="#_note-guardian_2" title="">[18]</a> London Sunday Times correspondent R.W. Johnson opined that the attack showed a “grim irony," since many of her novels focused on black people as victims, not victimizers.<sup id="_ref-Johnson_2" class="reference"><a href="#_note-Johnson" title="">[17]</a> 70.23.167.160 09:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)