Talk:Alice Walker: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 52: Line 52:
:::Your understanding of my views is as limited as your understanding of our policies here. You may not restore material removed as a BLP violation absent a consensus for it. And you may not repeatedly make BLP violations on this talk page or in the article. Nothing in the article supports that she herself espouses anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The furthest this article goes is to say she has positive views of Icke's books. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)</small>
:::Your understanding of my views is as limited as your understanding of our policies here. You may not restore material removed as a BLP violation absent a consensus for it. And you may not repeatedly make BLP violations on this talk page or in the article. Nothing in the article supports that she herself espouses anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The furthest this article goes is to say she has positive views of Icke's books. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)</small>
:The first sentence of the article should give an overview of why the subject is notable. Icke is notable for his crazy views. Walker is notable for her literary writings, and also happens to have crazy views. Therefore, I would say it's UNDUE to mention the crazy views in the first sentence of the article. For similar reasons, editors decided not to mention JK Rowling's opinion on trans people in the first sentence. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 05:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
:The first sentence of the article should give an overview of why the subject is notable. Icke is notable for his crazy views. Walker is notable for her literary writings, and also happens to have crazy views. Therefore, I would say it's UNDUE to mention the crazy views in the first sentence of the article. For similar reasons, editors decided not to mention JK Rowling's opinion on trans people in the first sentence. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 05:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
::I agree with buidhe, undue for the lead of the article we currently have. We should be noting the Icke connection in the lead (which should be longer) but "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist" doesn't really seem to be an accurate summary of the "Charges of antisemitism and support for conspiracy theorists" section. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

{{u|Secarctangent}}, as far as [[Special:Diff/1087908807|there is not consensus for changing the description of Walker]], '''you''' changed the description of Walker, without consensus, on [[Special:Diff/1086246178|5 May]]. And per [[WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE]] any material removed as a BLP violation may not be reinserted without consensus that it is not. And per [[WP:ONUS]], the onus of consensus for '''inclusion''' of challenged material "is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you continue to [[WP:EW|edit-war]] while violating both [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:ONUS]] you will be reported. And do not again make any further personal attacks on this page or in your edit summaries, as those will likewise be reported. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 06:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)</small>
{{u|Secarctangent}}, as far as [[Special:Diff/1087908807|there is not consensus for changing the description of Walker]], '''you''' changed the description of Walker, without consensus, on [[Special:Diff/1086246178|5 May]]. And per [[WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE]] any material removed as a BLP violation may not be reinserted without consensus that it is not. And per [[WP:ONUS]], the onus of consensus for '''inclusion''' of challenged material "is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you continue to [[WP:EW|edit-war]] while violating both [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:ONUS]] you will be reported. And do not again make any further personal attacks on this page or in your edit summaries, as those will likewise be reported. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 06:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)</small>



Revision as of 17:37, 15 May 2022

Template:Vital article



Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gemyni.turner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Forclassaccount. Peer reviewers: Melyle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jessicasener. Peer reviewers: Devon Cosgrove, Angelicastabile.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to have one's book translated to Hebrew, while it may (but also may not!) be due to antisemitism, is not in itself a form of antisemitism

The section Antisemitism currently ends with the sentence "According to multiple sources, Walker will not allow The Color Purple to be published in Hebrew." This is already mentioned earlier in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict subsection, where I think is the appropriate place for it. As it is not related (at the very least not directly) to antisemitism, I suggest this sentence be removed from the Antisemitism section (with the appropriate references copied to the mention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict subsection, if needed). 2A02:8070:898C:D800:F5C3:3D3E:644F:4985 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context of her history of anti-semitic remarks and advocacy of such texts, her refusal to publish in Hebrew seems at least as (if not more?) germane to the "Anti-Semitism" Section than to the "Israel-Palestine" Section. But I agree it's redundant and shouldn't it only appear once? 184.153.88.187 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If she doesn’t want to book published in Israel, that it would belong in the Israel m-Palestinian section, but if she doesn’t want it published in Hebrew, then that is an issue re antisemitism David Couch (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She ties it specifically to Israel, so moved there. nableezy - 06:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

anti-semitic conspiracy theorist in the lead

First, this was first added to the lead on May 5. Second, the article doesnt support it, it at most supports that she has supported the work of somebody who has espoused anti-semitic conspiracy theories (Icke). I also think that section should be retitled support for David Icke as that is mostly what is covered, though there is one poem the Tablet took issue with as well. nableezy - 04:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely supports it. She repeatedly espouses and promotes in anti-semitic conspiracy theories, to the degree that people who are biased in favor of her later admit that they should not have supported her once they learn of her views. It's wildly non-NPOV to delete this. Secarctangent (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that the user that made this edit openly espouses support for a designated anti-Jewish terrorist group on their user page, so maybe we shouldn't trust nableezy as being NPOV on this topic. Secarctangent (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep comments to the Content not contributor and avoid ad hominems. (t · c) buidhe 05:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of my views is as limited as your understanding of our policies here. You may not restore material removed as a BLP violation absent a consensus for it. And you may not repeatedly make BLP violations on this talk page or in the article. Nothing in the article supports that she herself espouses anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The furthest this article goes is to say she has positive views of Icke's books. nableezy - 06:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article should give an overview of why the subject is notable. Icke is notable for his crazy views. Walker is notable for her literary writings, and also happens to have crazy views. Therefore, I would say it's UNDUE to mention the crazy views in the first sentence of the article. For similar reasons, editors decided not to mention JK Rowling's opinion on trans people in the first sentence. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with buidhe, undue for the lead of the article we currently have. We should be noting the Icke connection in the lead (which should be longer) but "anti-semitic conspiracy theorist" doesn't really seem to be an accurate summary of the "Charges of antisemitism and support for conspiracy theorists" section. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secarctangent, as far as there is not consensus for changing the description of Walker, you changed the description of Walker, without consensus, on 5 May. And per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE any material removed as a BLP violation may not be reinserted without consensus that it is not. And per WP:ONUS, the onus of consensus for inclusion of challenged material "is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you continue to edit-war while violating both WP:BLP and WP:ONUS you will be reported. And do not again make any further personal attacks on this page or in your edit summaries, as those will likewise be reported. nableezy - 06:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a personal attack to note that you disclose on your own user page your support for a group that Wikipedia itself describes as antisemitic, and that you are editing an article about antisemitism?
Is any aspect of that statement not factual about your conflict of interest? Secarctangent (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My user page makes no such statement of support, and I have no conflict of interest, and if you continue to misuse this page I will be asking for sanctions. nableezy - 13:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secarctangent, blp dictates that we can’t assign negative characteristics in an article in “Wikipedia’s voice”. So it will always be “accusations of”, no matter how clear cut it may be. Drsmoo (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]