Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 3

compromise proposal

I can see the following text being added: "She was robbed on 26 October 2006 by three men in her home in Parktown, Johannesburg, and was assaulted after she refused to hand over her wedding ring." It describes an event that happened in her life, without trying to put POV spin on it. The race of the men doesn't matter, but could possibly be added as matter of fact. Any discussion or theorizing about how this event may or may not have changed her personal views on matters is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Simply stating that this attack happened is not POV. Drawing inferences, or trying to find irony, is indeed POV. I understand the need not to include every single thing that happened to her. This might fall into the category of "Recent Events," and then removed in six months to a year, when it was no longer recent. I'll await further talk here before I make any changes. Andyparkerson 11:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My only objection (and it's a minor one) to the information about the assault, is that it is a "news-y", and not a typical biographical fact. Given that this isn't WikiNews, and that the inclusion has been a magnet for the inclusion of non-notable information (the race of the attackers; the "irony" quote), I think it's better to have it out altogether. However, it would be an acceptable compromise to me to have the attack in as a recent event (deleted when no longer recent and not shown to be of biographical significance). --lquilter 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it is indeed news-y. However Wikipedia often favors coverage of recent events. As time passes and recent events fade away, some perspective can be found and everything placed in its proper context. One idea on how to handle this would be to place the reference in a WikiNews box, and refer the reader to the relevent page on WikiNews. I have seen this done elsewhere, and it acknowledges the recent event without focusing too much emphasis on it.

On a side note, we should archive this topic, so that it doesn't take over the main talk page like it does now. I don't know how to do this, but you (LQuilter) have mentioned thinking about it. I am all for it. The discussion will still be accessible, but it won't be as dominant. Andyparkerson 12:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of linking to something in WikiNews -- is there something there currently? I don't edit WikiNews or even use it that much .... (Parenthetically I note that the assault was 4 months ago so it's already getting a bit stale for news.)

As for archiving - geez, I'd really like to, and I set up archive boxes for it ... I agree that it's unmanageably long & difficult to read. Hmm. I will move off the older material, and link to it from here; then we can read all the older stuff and just keep this one live. --lquilter 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007: the debate springs back to life

The sheer irony alone makes this event notable. It may be the sole item of interest to readers outside of lit crit circles. Yakuman 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And btw -- Gordimer is of interest far beyond "lit crit circles". Try people who like to read contemporary fiction.--lquilter 05:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Irony is a particular perspective, and, I would add, a very race-based perspective. There needs to be something here besides "irony". Please read WP:NPOV. I removed the material, because this has for four months been the subject of an on-going edit war between primarily one editor who has repeatedly re-inserted the material, without ever addressing the points raised at length about this material. Yakuman, your perspective is welcome, but I suggest reading the material on Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 to get a sense of where this debate has been. Unless you can contribute something besides your agreement that the incident is "ironic", then you haven't advanced the discussion. --lquilter 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1.) Irony is sufficient, but not necessary.
2.) Let's say this is a "race-based perspective. The author made her career on race-based perspectives. That's a reason the incident is relevant.
3.)This is your POV that says the incident is unimportant. I say it makes the woman interesting to the mainstream public. These facts are relevant and public.
I must warn you that the comment that I somehow am unfamiliar with the debate and "haven't advanced the discussion" and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Visitors are invited to improve the text in Wikipedia. But often there are differences of opinion on whether a change in text is an "improvement". When editors weigh the pros and cons of whether a change is an improvement, it may be difficult to criticize text without being subjective about the situation. Editors, in trying to be clear, can be unnecessarily harsh on the giving end. Conversely, on the receiving end, editors can be oversensitive when they see what they wrote replaced by something that claims to be "better", despite it being the opposite of what they wrote.Visitors are invited to improve the text in Wikipedia. But often there are differences of opinion on whether a change in text is an "improvement". When editors weigh the pros and cons of whether a change is an improvement, it may be difficult to criticize text without being subjective about the situation. Editors, in trying to be clear, can be unnecessarily harsh on the giving end. Conversely, on the receiving end, editors can be oversensitive when they see what they wrote replaced by something that claims to be "better", despite it being the opposite of what they wrote.

Yakuman 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure why you think irony is sufficient reason for inclusion in wikipedia. Irony does not equal notability. And that's if one grants that the incident is ironic, which, again, is dependent on a particular point of view. I for one don't really see the irony in fighting a state-based system of oppression on the one hand, and on the other hand being the victim of a run-of-the-mill criminal incident that happens to be by members of the vast majority ethnic group. --lquilter 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
   • If I may interject here, one does not have to agree with, say, the belief system of Islam, to understand it is notable because one billion people agree with it. Islam may be wrong in your point of view (if not Islam, then surely some other religion is wrong in your point of view). Do you campaign against the Islam article with the same "I, for one" type of argument? Every religion is POV from the get-go, but that does not prevent Wikipedia from having thousands of articles about the various mutually contradictory religions. It's possible to write in an NPOV way about topics which are themselves inescapably POV. I am quite sure that an honest survey would find millions of people who would recognize the irony in an attack on a notable benefactor of a group by members of the beneficiary group, regardless of the attackers' motives (which we can't be sure about anyway - perhaps they were racially motivated, and if the victim had been, say, Nelson Mandela, and the attackers white, who would not suspect racial motivation? Besides, did the attackers recognize the victim at the time of the attack? Were they aware that they were robbing and beating an icon of the anti-apartheid movement? Were they intelligent enough to grasp the larger meaning of any attack on a celebrity, particularly an attack on a notable anti-apartheid activist in South Africa?). Suppose Mother Teresa had been beaten and robbed by three lepers; who wouldn't see the irony in that? The plight of lepers is far less politicized, so most people would have no political agenda to motivate them to deny the irony. The perception of irony may be illogical, for there is no logical reason to suppose that spending one's life to help a group of people entitles one to gratitude from every member of the group, but the fact remains that a very large number of people still tend to find a different outcome ironic, and the fact that they do makes such events notable. --Teratornis 18:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
     • Writing about Islam is writing about something that embodies a POV, but are notable for some other reason -- such as mass movements, notable people, philosophies, religions, etc. One can write about it from a NPOV position; the only "POV" injected is "notability". On the other hand, using "irony" as the criteria for notability is in itself injecting a POV: the POV that finds irony in the story. Strom Thurmond's affair and biracial child are not notable because of "irony", although some might find it so, but because the incident demonstrated inconsistency in Thurmond's own positions. It's information about him. You'll note that in earlier conversations, I and I think others said that if the incident did change Gordimer's beliefs, then it would certainly be notable. The fact that this incident did not change Gordimer's beliefs suggests precisely nothing about Gordimer's beliefs; the fact that some people think it should have suggests only something about their beliefs; specifically, what they think of apartheid, Gordimer's critique of apartheid, race, criminality, etc. Whatever it is suggesting, it's not relevant to Nadine Gordimer. --lquilter 21:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Thanks for the "warning" but I don't feel it's necessary. Pointing out that your two-sentence statement doesn't add to the debate is scarcely uncivil; and referring you to the earlier discussion doesn't really qualify as an assumption of bad faith. Indeed, I have to say that I'm surprised that someone who had read the lengthy discussion would just paste in the same material without responding to any of the points made about it.
2. I reiterate: You haven't advanced the debate, because the point that this is ironic and therefore interesting has already been made, at length. I believe that everyone who has ever discussed this issue on these pages understands that the perceived irony is that Gordimer fought apartheid, and then was the victim of a criminal assault by members of the very class on whose behalf she agitated. But not everyone agrees that that is ironic (again, see the Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2). And regardless, irony != notability. Please note that there were a lot of suggestions made in the earlier discussion about ways that this incident could be shown to be notable (and why it therefore is not notable); or ways, even, to edit the article to contextualize the incident such that its utter non-notability didn't stand out like a sore thumb.
3. I find it troubling that you have now simply pasted back in the exact material which numerous editors have rejected, without attempting to respond to the current compromise proposal by Andyparkerson, or any of the other proposals on Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 page. There have been plenty of suggestions about how to address the problems with this content, but the version that you are pasting in (which is the same one the anonymous IP editor has repasted scores of times now) doesn't address any of the comments or suggestions. --lquilter 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

These points were addressed in the past to no avail. You miss the point of the word irony, which was that her being robbed brings up a socio-political issue reflecting the topic of her books. In the interest of fair play, however, I did not reinstate the Times comment to remove any shadow of POV or some claim of an agenda on my part. I hope this makes some difference, but I fear it won't. Other than that, I can only reiterate what was already said. Please refrain from future clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Remember 3RR. Yakuman 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not miss the point of the word irony, and I don't think that anyone misses the point that the people who argue this is ironic are trying to make; indeed, that is the very crux of the debate. The earliest comments on the Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 make that clear. Since only some people see "irony" in arguing for social change on the one hand, and being the victim of a criminal assault on the other, the irony is a particular WP:NPOV. (Irony may always be a particular POV, but for purposes here we don't need to go there.)

The race of the various players in the assault is relevant only because of the perception of irony -- which is the POV of some people. Since there no other relevance to the attackers' race has been alleged, other than its irony in light of her advocacy of social justice, then inclusion of race is POV-based. Non-ironic (neutral POV) reasons for relevance of race might include, for instance, a) the attackers saying or being shown to have engaged in this specific attack for race-related reasons; b) the attack being shown to have singled out Gordimer for her views on race etc.; c) the attack actually having an effect on Gordimer for her views on race. I hope that summary of the discussion from Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 helps. --lquilter 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Interjecting here again, I disagree that the assault is relevant only because of the perception of irony. If Nelson Mandela had been beaten and robbed by three white men who were only after his wedding ring, would you object to mentioning that event in his article? In cultures with racial tension, otherwise ordinary crimes where the race of assailant and victim differ tend to evoke a stronger reaction. For example, in the United States, there have been demonstrations and even race riots triggered by such crimes, while the usual backdrop of white-on-white and black-on-black crime is less likely to motivate similar outrage. See 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal#Effect on community relations. In that case, activist groups are staging protests against the alleged rapists, even though the prosecution's case is falling apart, there is no evidence that the accused targeted the accuser because of her race, and there are numerous rapes of black women by black men that by comparison are more or less ignored by the community. Trying to dismiss these events as "ordinary" crimes is disingenuous, because that's not how racially-sensitized communities view them. Perhaps a viewing of the South Park episode on hate crime is in order. Also, it has by no means been proven that Gordimer's assailants were not motivated in any way by race, regardless of denials. They had to at least be aware of the race of their victim, if not her identity, and to have had some idea that their actions would be viewed as more than an "ordinary" crime by many people. Would we expect common criminals to have cultivated a completely color-blind outlook despite having probably suffered directly or indirectly under apartheid? (I suspect these men are not university-trained politically-correct intellectuals, but I merely speculate.) Is it reasonable to conclude they are entirely free from the type of racial-vengeance motivation that Eldridge Cleaver infamously admitted to? Not everyone responds dispassionately to oppression like a Mahatma Gandhi. --Teratornis 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You assume a POV on my part when you ask: If Nelson Mandela had been beaten and robbed by three white men who were only after his wedding ring, would you object to mentioning that event in his article? My answer is the same as it is for Nadine Gordimer: If the incident were shown to be notable then I would have no problem with mentioning the incident; if the racial character of the assailants were shown to be notable then I would have no problem with mentioning that. The incident might be notable if it were notable in Mandela's life (killed him or disabled him or changed his views) or if it affected other people (started race riots, maybe). The race would be relevant if race were a motivating factor in the attack, or if the race of the players affected the parties, or if the racial makeup of the incident was a significant factor to someone else -- again, triggering race riots would be a good example. ... I think the more interesting question for people to ask themselves is: Would the various people who want this information in be as concerned with putting it in if the Nadine Gordimer's assailants were white? (My guess is no, since not one of the people who have argued so vociferously for including the assault and the race have ever contributed anything else to the Nadine Gordimer article.) My position would be the same. Demonstrate some external, real-world significance to the race and/or to the incident -- not your perspective that it should have or might have changed Gordimer's beliefs. --lquilter 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have some other explanation for a non-ironic justification for the race of the attackers, or can explain why irony in this instance is not a POV, I'd like to hear it. Contrary to your statement, these issues were not addressed in the discussion, other than to reiterate that they were "ironic". If by "to no avail" you mean that the repeated assertion that the incident was ironic or that the race is important because of South Africa's current political situation, then, yes, that was to "no avail" because these points were disputed, and no response was ever made that addressed the disputes. --lquilter 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, Islam is POV; we have an article about it because one billion people share that POV. We have an article about flat earth even though hardly anyone shares that POV any more, but once many people did. --Teratornis 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and we have articles on racism which is a POV but we don't write from a racist perspective. We write from a NPOV. Your analogy is wrong, as I explained above. Because we write wikipedia from a NPOV, each individual fact (including (a) the assault and (b) the race of the assailants) has to be independently justified as notable by external facts, not by users' POVs. --lquilter 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And btw were no past "clear violations" of WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF on my part. As for WP:3RR, I didn't even come close to that, and put the disputed header in instead of reverting. (Or perhaps, Yakuman, you're trying to remind yourself to not put the same material in, more than the twice you already did so?) --lquilter 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Contention and POV

Now, a serious of anonymous editors have taken to edit-warring, and Yakuman has continued to replace the content (while accusing me, oddly enough, of a 3RR). I have, now, again, placed the disputed material in its own section with a POV section heading. Until this dispute is resolved, the disputed content should stay in the POV heading. If the content is removed and replaced again, it should be replaced with the POV heading, until there is some indication that the dispute is resolved. --lquilter 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If the claim is a subject of contention, there must be some question over the factuality of the statement. Since all agree that the statement is true, there is nothing to contend over. Since there is no contention, there is no POV issue. Yakuman 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue weight explains that even facts can be POV as "undue weight"; see also previous discussions on Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2. --lquilter 23:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in this case. It is not undue weight because, as it stands, it is two largely parenthetical statements in a biographical essay. That's not undue. Neutral POV would leave it in, as it contributes to the ongoing dialogue in re her advocacy of social justice. Whether or not the attack actually had an effect on Gordimer for her views on race is not our decision; that should be left to the readers. Race is important in this instance because Gordimer campaigned for years on racial matters. Yakuman

Then you ought to resurrect, not just the disputed material, but also the material regarding Gordimer's comments about the effect the incident had on her advocacy -- that is to say, none. That sentence & cite was somewhere in the November 2006 edits. I continue to disagree that this material is relevant. Gordimer's advocacy was against apartheid, a state-sponsored regime of racial segregation. This criminal assault has no direct bearing on apartheid. The fact that you and others see some relevance is itself a point requiring analysis and support; effectively, a question of Wikipedia:Attribution (previously "no original research"). At any rate, since you persist in making this connection, you really need to support it with citations. Please suggest some third-party published sources that support the connection between the specific criminal assault at Gordimer's house and the crime rate in Johannesburg. --lquilter 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing: Don't claim "undue weight" about content when you just added a subheading to emphasize it. Yakuman

I didn't "add[] the subheading" in order to emphasize it; that was simply a side effect. It seemed better to have a subheading which accurately described the material and permitted the POV tag to be limited to that material, than to continue including the material in a section it didn't belong, and add a POV tag to the whole section. I'm not sure why you chose to delete the subheading; could you please explain? --lquilter 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Events & News approach

I added back the Recent Events header, and pulled the attack and biography items under it. Since these happened in the last year, and 15 years after everything else in her bio, I think they belong in their own seperate section. I reworded the attack graph a bit, and took out the stuff about "high-tech security", since the reference says she did not avail herself of it. I think that the way it stands now is neutral, since it describes factually events that occured in her life. Being robbed at home by three men in the middle of the day and assaulted is noteworthy, not because of any irony, but because it was very traumatic, and showcases how bad crime has gotten in Johannesburg. Hopefully this will suffice, and we can take the POV tag off after a week or so. Andyparkerson 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I still don't see the relevance of including the race of the attackers; I don't think we should be using the Nadine Gordimer article to highlight crime in Johannesburg; there's no evidence that it was "very traumatic"; and if this incident is going to be mentioned -- which I don't think it should be -- then we should (a) support the inclusion of the incident; (b) support the inclusion of the race; and (c) if both the incident and the race are included, because of some external point about Johannesburg or "irony", then Gordimer's stated response (that this had no effect on her) should also be included. --lquilter 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points. I also don't think race is important to mention, but some editors do, and I think we need to find a way to address it in as neutral a manner as possible. Perhaps we can include a footnote stating the percentage of South Africans that are black, thus putting the inclusion of race in context. If most South Africans are black, the race of the attackers seems less important. Just a thought. Andyparkerson 03:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• To interject here, as I mentioned earlier in this discussion, nobody seems bothered that the article calls Nadine Gordimer a Jew. If the race of her attackers is not relevant, how is her heritage relevant? The article does not show that there is anything inherently "Jewish" about Gordimer's views or career. Her heritage is just a stray fact, tossed in because someone thought it was worth mentioning, and it happens not to upset anyone. It is not consistent to write about someone's ethnic background, and then go on a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" when it comes to some other ethnic facts which happen to be inconvenient for a certain political agenda. A neutral point of view means presenting the facts. We should not over-emphasize some facts while excluding others, but to censor certain facts for various drummed-up reasons is POV. The facts are the facts, themselves completely neutral. There is nothing POV about telling what happened. Certainly in light of South Africa's history, race is normally on the minds of South Africans themselves. It is probably one of the most important social issues to many South Africans. If a Jewish activist were to get beaten and robbed by skinheads in Germany, would it be reasonable to mention the political views of the attackers, even if those views played no role in the attack? Of course it would. Many readers would probably resent being kept from that fact because of some politically correct agenda. --Teratornis 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I might add, if the race of the attackers is irrelevant, why does the article mention their gender? Instead of calling the attackers "men," why not use the gender-neutral term "people"? Calling them "men" is as POV as calling them "black." Of course, "people" is also POV; perhaps we should use the species-neutral term "organisms." Once we start the politically-correct ethnic cleansing of Wikipedia, where does it stop? Must we censor every fact which bothers someone? --Teratornis 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As for "very traumatic," I added that in my comment. I have no evidence that it was very traumatic for Gordimer or her housekeeper. I assumed that if I were in her place, an 82 year old woman in my home in the middle of the day and was assaulted and robbed, it would be traumatic. But that is neither here nor there. I am not she.

This incident does indeed seem news-y, and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. That is one drawback of Wikipedia: the urge to update and keep pages fresh outshines the need for hindsight and reflection. I think we need to add a page to Wikinews, and put a reference to it. I'll work on that, but I also haven't messed with Wikinews before.

This is so much ado about so little. I would like to see her intro paragraph expanded, so it is easier to get a feel for who she is and what she writes about without reading the whole article. If we spent half as much energy working on the rest of the article as we have with this one incident, it would be much better. Andyparkerson 03:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Created a Wikinews page with all the information on it. Added a link to that page. I took off the POV tag, since it seems unneeded now. Please let this be the end of it. :) Andyparkerson 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a general update, because I see that the chronology is getting a little confused:

• Andyparkerson created a Wikinews page which was deleted because the incident is four months old and so not really "news". So that proposed solution didn't work.
• User 70.23.* added the material in again, without a NPOV section header, without Nadine Gordimer's response; and without responding to any of the substantive points made repeatedly about a) the incident not being notable in Gordimer's life, general South African politics, or any other conceivable notability; b) the ethnicity of the assailants also not notable and in contravention of wikipedia policy on mentioning race when it is irrelevant; and c) "irony" is not equivalent to notability. User 70.23.* misleadingly used the edit summary "as per current consensus" to describe this insertion.
• Andyparkerson added some contextualizing information.
• I've now re-added the NPOV section, because user 70.23.* has added the material back in. Thanks Andyparkerson for attempting to add in Nadine Gordimer's response, but actually there was a more on-point response in one of the very early versions; something about that her opinion about apartheid wasn't at all changed. Of course, it's hard to find because user 70.23.* has re-inserted the material scores of times making the edit history hard to search, but it's in there. --lquilter 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The editorial ethnic cleansing continues

Nadine Gordimer/Archive 3 has once again undergone "ethnic cleansing" of all references to the attack on Nadine Gordimer by three (let us neutrally say) persons. By the same principle, should we also ethnically cleanse all references to race in the section: Strom Thurmond#Mixed race daughter? Does anyone who has difficulty recognizing irony in the attack on Nadine Gordimer have similar difficulty recognizing irony in a famously segregationist politician fathering a daughter of mixed race?

To say that the attack on Gordimer is not notable because it did not change her views infers the opposite of what it should. Incidents such as the attack on Gordimer, and Strom Thurmond's lifetime secret, are notable precisely because they did not change the famously-held views of the respective subjects, when in the view of many observers, situations such as those might at least give a person something to think about. Those types of vignettes tell us something about the depth of conviction in their subjects which we do not gain from sanitized depictions of their lives as somehow having been free from any sort of complex experiential challenges to their positions. Life is rarely as one-sided as the opinions most people hold, and it is interesting to read about events in people's lives which challenge their world views.

The article on Nadine Gordimer is now the poorer because it no longer demonstrates just how serious she is about her beliefs, not to mention her ability to forgive. Would the life of Jesus be the same with no mention of the crucifixion and Jesus' alleged forgiveness from the cross? The latter story has been used to incite anti-semitism for centuries, by the way, but that does not stop people from re-telling it. --Teratornis 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I addressed the in-apt analogy to Strom Thurmond above. You do raise a new spin on an old point: The race of the assailants' is notable because it did not affect Gordimer's opinions. Unfortunately, while this is an interesting new spin, it's not actually different in kind from the "ironic" argument, and so also fails. The basic problem is that the notion that the attack should have affected Gordimer's opinions is, itself, a (non-neutral) POV: the perspective that the race of her attackers could reasonably be expected to change her previously articulated positions on state-mandated racial separation. Unfortunately, it's the perspective of the some individuals that suggests the race of the assailants renders the incident "ironic" or would be expected to affect Gordimer's beliefs. And Wikipedia does not traffic in particular perspectives. If the race is, independently, shown to be notable, then of course it should be mentioned. But since it has had, apparently, no effect in the world ... then the race of the assailants is not notable, no matter how strange, ironic, inspiring, or otherwise, someone else might find it. --lquilter 00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

“Irony is a particular perspective, and, I would add, a very race-based perspective.” “--lquilter 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)”

Well, that’s a big, bold POV, expressed without any support whatsoever. You need to justify that statement to my satisfaction.

“There needs to be something here besides ‘irony’.” [sic] --ditto

Wrong again!

As for WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, User:lquilter cannot make a post without violating them. He’s been calling me a racist since he made my acquaintance. As far as he is concerned, anyone who disagrees with him on anything remotely touching on race is a racist. And that includes anyone who would say or write anything showing blacks behaving badly.

“I reiterate: You haven't advanced the debate, because the point that this is ironic and therefore interesting has already been made, at length.”

If so, then why do you persist in deleting every reference to the incident?

“I believe that everyone who has ever discussed this issue on these pages understands that the perceived irony is that Gordimer fought apartheid, and then was the victim of a criminal assault by members of the very class on whose behalf she agitated. But not everyone agrees that that is ironic (again, see the Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2).”

But you previously insisted that irony is race-specific. Are you saying that all of the people who find the assault ironic belong to one race, and that all of the people who deny its irony belong to another race or races? If so, you are wrong. And if that is not the case, then you don’t believe your own statement that irony is race-specific.

“And regardless, irony != notability. Please note that there were a lot of suggestions made in the earlier discussion about ways that this incident could be shown to be notable (and why it therefore is not notable); or ways, even, to edit the article to contextualize the incident such that its utter non-notability didn't stand out like a sore thumb.”

The past discussions were about NPOV and notability, but not in any objective sense; NPOV and notability were merely red herrings that User:lquilter used, in order to prevent, by any means necessary, this incident being recorded. He had taken over the non-debate, by first insisting that merely mentioning the assault was POV, and that only a racist would even dream of doing it, and then insisting that it was “non-notable” [sic]. Other people were engaged in a hopeless attempt at placating him, not realizing that nothing would placate him, short of censoring any and all reference to the assault, which was almost certainly a racial attack. (Nadine Gordimer is arguably the most famous “white lady” in all of South Africa; her robber-attackers would certainly have known who the “white lady” was, and that she had fought politically for years on behalf of South African blacks. Saying that the attack was “ironic” is actually a genteel euphemism to avoid mentioning its monstrous character.)

User:lquilter to: User:Yakuman “I find it troubling that you have now simply pasted back in the exact material which numerous editors have rejected, without attempting to respond to the current compromise proposal by Andyparkerson, or any of the other proposals on Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 page. There have been plenty of suggestions about how to address the problems with this content, but the version that you are pasting in (which is the same one the anonymous IP editor has repasted scores of times now) doesn't address any of the comments or suggestions. --lquilter 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)”

More editors have accepted the material than have rejected it. When you were able to get some allies to help you gang up on me, you insisted, falsely, that I was the only person who wanted the material included, and that my position was therefore without merit, when in fact eight or more other previous editors had found it acceptable in one form or another (some with “black” in, some without reference to the attackers’ race). But once other editors began openly disagreeing with you, you accused them of “edit warring” with you (“a serious [sic] of anonymous editors have taken to edit-warring”), as if you were not engaged in edit warring, and as if the criterion you had formerly imposed (one now sees out of pure expediency), of an editor having to have a group supporting a position were invalid. You also claimed that all of the editors “edit warring” with you were anonymous, as if that somehow disqualified them. In any event, the charge was untrue. Since at the time, I was just reading the back-and-forth from the sidelines, and trying to keep count of your violations, contradictions, and misrepresentations, only one anonymous editor was disagreeing with you; the others were all registered.

(P.S. The following passage was contradicted so many times by statements you had previously made that it was clearly meant as a ploy give the appearance of open-mindedness.

“My only objection (and it's a minor one) to the information about the assault, is that it is a "news-y", and not a typical biographical fact. Given that this isn't WikiNews, and that the inclusion has been a magnet for the inclusion of non-notable information (the race of the attackers; the "irony" quote), I think it's better to have it out altogether. However, it would be an acceptable compromise to me to have the attack in as a recent event (deleted when no longer recent and not shown to be of biographical significance). --lquilter 19:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)”

And don’t go charging me with violating WP:AGF; one is not required to assume good faith in the face of evidence, abundant in your case, of malice.)

The folks who have been hopelessly trying to placate User:lquilter have made the mistake of buying into his attitude, whereby he demands that they must somehow convince him that the material belongs in the article. But that’s all wrong. He is the one who must justify his position, something which he has never done. Practices such as calling one’s opponents racists and calling for allies on one’s talk page and on other people’s talk pages (e.g., User:Will Beback) to help one beat up one’s opponents not only violates WP:CIV, but do not count as counter-arguments.

I’m glad User:Lquilter isn’t a lawyer; were he to use such tactics while arguing court cases, he’d be disbarred.

“Please suggest some third-party published sources that support the connection between the specific criminal assault at Gordimer's house and the crime rate in Johannesburg. --lquilter 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)”

That’s funny; when I did just that, in showing the assault in the context of a South African campaign of genocide against whites, User:lquilter summarily deleted it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadine_Gordimer&oldid=111588810

I guess that was yet another of his expedient, by-any-means-necessary demands. After all, as everyone knows, genocide is “non-notable” [sic].

Ilana Mercer, "The genocide in democratic South Africa,", World Net Daily, January 19, 2007 [http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53830 + "The genocide in democratic South Africa"].

The moral of the story is that fair-minded, honest people have to stop permitting Wikicensors from intimidating them. Just put in, or restore to the article whatever you know to be true and deem to be significant.

These people are never going to give you their permission, and you don’t need it, anyway. (And with their out-of-control sense of entitlement and will to power, they are NEVER going to ask your permission to do anything.) They will surely censor you yet again, but you can just revert their censorship, as can any other fair-minded, honest person who should happen on to the censorship before you do. That’s how I got involved in this article. I was reading it a few months ago, decided to check out its history, and saw that an activist (not lquilter) had decided to take over the article, to censor any mention of this crime, and to boss around anyone who thought differently. Sound familiar? Acting on my hatred of censorship, I restored the censored passage. Today I’m still here, fighting the censors.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

P.S. If you check Wikinews, you will see that there is no article on the assault on Gordimer, just as there is no link at this article about it. That was a clever dodge, but a dodge nonetheless. 70.23.199.239 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Welcome back, Nicky. I always thought "ethnic cleansing" involved killing people. I didn't know it applied to editing Wikipedia articles too.

It turns out there were 4 men who attacked her. I added that information, and her reaction to the whole ordeal. Now we have both a) what happened, and b) how it affected her. Dear God, let this be the end of this. Andyparkerson 07:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User 70.23.*.* raises no new points; a review of the previous talk pages will cover all the same material. Since the user persists in being uncivil and making personal attacks about me, that are also redundant of all the same old material, I'm not going to respond separately. ... Andyparkerson, I've added a NPOV header at the top of the material, because the race of the assailants still has been nowhere shown to be a notable feature of this particular assault. But since user 70.23.* persists in putting in this non-notable assault with the race of the assailants (indeed only because of the race of the assailants), then Gordimer's response ought to be included. Her response (buried in scores of reversions by user 70.23.*) is at [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lquilter (talk • contribs) 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Is there a source on her response? If we can get that, then we can revert back to that version. We just need to come up with some solution that works. All the reverts and edit-warring are getting this article nowhere. Some concessions are going to have to be made here. Andyparkerson 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree on the edit warring & reverts, which is why I have used NPOV tags, tried to engage 70.23* in dialog, and brought in other editors on an RFC. ... I don't have a source; I dug through the first bunch of edits to find this version. I seem to recall a quote getting added in later, but I may be misremembering. If nobody else has, I'll work my way through more of the edit history later on. --lquilter 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)