Talk:Nadine Gordimer

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

can someone get the links in the fiction section working and the pages to atualy be made. fwed66 17:33(GMT) 5 june 2006

The current wording is intended to imply that Gordimer's mother was not Jewish, which is untrue. It is furthermore untrue that she was "raised a Christian," as the article currently states. On page 33 of "No Cold Kitchen: A Biography of Nadine Gordimer," Ronald Suresh Roberts writes "Gordimer's mother was named Nan (her real name was Hannah, née Myers). Her father went by Isidore Gordimer... Isidore and Nan were both products of the large Jewish migration to South Africa in the last decades of the nineteenth century (he from the Eastern European Pale, she from London)." Much of the chapter entitled "Wellsprings: Ancestry" deals with the Jewish backgrounds of both sides of Nadine Gordimer's family. She and her sister did attend a Catholic parochial school, where "Nadine and Betty were the only Jews" (Roberts, page 47), but she is not a Christian. In an article on Gordimer in "Jewish Writers of the Twentieth Century," Marcia Leveson quotes Gordimer as saying "I have never denied that I'm Jewish and have no desire to deny it. For me, being Jewish is like being black: you simply are. To want to deny it is simply disgusting." Jinfo 06:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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. [1] She has been adamant in stating however that this attack will not alter her previously expressed beliefs about the ills of apartheid." What the . . . Why would it alter her beliefs about apartheid? This doesn't belong in this article, any way, shape, or form. I'm taking the whole thing out. It's horrible to hear that she was attacked, but this is not encyclopedia information. Whatever is being implied in the back and forth, putting in the word "black" men and taking it back out and then, apparently, someone thought they could justify the inclusion of this information with relevance to her political views!! -It's preposterous and offensive.DianaW 04:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who removed this material both on the 18th and again last night. I didn't mean to do it anonymously, I guess I forgot to log in. The person who added this material yesterday did so without discussion. It had already been disputed here. I felt that since I was the last person to comment on this issue and no one had disputed my take on this, my sense that it should not be included here should stand until or unless someone comes along who'd actually care to discuss it. Examining the other wikipedia contributions of the person who inserted this material yesterday gave me a very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly. If someone wants to make a case for the inclusion of reports of this attack in this article - and has a suggestion for how such reports can be made to read neutrally without extremely ugly racial overtones, please feel free.DianaW 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous editor, I would like to hear your views on why this material needs to be included here. The way wikipedia works, you need to discuss controversial changes with other editors; not just repeatedly and without discussion insert things that have been previously removed. Please either discuss your changes or expect to see me remove them again. There needs to be a justification for including something that, as phrased, has very unsavory implications. Could you, for instance, state why you believe this incident, along with irrelevant comments about the race of certain individuals, needs to be included in an encyclopedia article on Nadine Gordimer?DianaW 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lquilter. You must have done that just moments ago. I'm relieved not to be the only one watching this page who sees it this way.DianaW 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're absolutely right -- this material is not particularly notable, and is written in an obvious POV manner to try to make a subtle racist claim. --LQ 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what follows, I am referring to the viciously worded entry DianaW 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC), not to the same individual’s entry at 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC), in which she uses much different language, in seeking to present herself as the soul of reason and tolerance. That ship has sailed.[reply]

“The person who added this material yesterday did so without discussion.” You mean, I did so without seeking your permission. Who died, and made you censor-in-chief?

“I felt that since I was the last person to comment on this issue and no one had disputed my take on this, my sense that it should not be included here should stand until or unless someone comes along who'd actually care to discuss it.”

Consider yourself disputed. You don’t discuss, you censor (and only eight minutes after I restored the passage you’d previously censored! Is that some kind of Wikirecord?), plus you throw political epithets around, couched in cowardly pc-wikispeak (“very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly.”), in order to smear those who refuse to toe your political line, and to intimidate anyone else who might disagree with you. In a textbook ad hominem attack, you insinuated that I am a racist, and that all readers should treat anything I say with contempt.

Indeed, to borrow from Mary McCarthy, every word in your preceding entry passage violated the Wiki: Talk guidelines, including “and” and "the.” Were I to follow the same guidelines, I could not possibly respond to you. But then, I have previously complained about Wikipedia guidelines that only seem to exist to silence certain people, and to give dictatorial powers to others.

Nowhere did you show anything that was wrong with my restoration of the passage you had wrongfully censored, or with the quote that I had added, as per Wikipedia guidelines, and which came from the same source – a reporter in the London Sunday Times – as the section you had censored. Is the LST insufficiently pc for you?

(I am now writing for the sake of other Wikipedia readers, not the censor, who appears to be a lost cause).

The piece that I restored (I had not originally written it) and supplemented with a quote, was a factual report of a robbery last month of Ms. Gordimer by three black men. Since by the time you read this, the censor will no doubt have stricken it yet again from the article proper, the entire passage follows:

“She 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. The (London) Sunday Times’ Durban correspondent, R.W. Johnson observed, ‘There is a grim irony to the attack, for Gordimer’s novels are all focused on the inhumanities of apartheid — with blacks always the victims, not, as in this case, the perpetrators.’ [1]”

The first sentence was the original passage, previous to the censor doing what she does; I added the rest. I followed Wikipedia guidelines; the censor had violated them, and has done so anew.

I added no “POV”; I added only facts, facts which the censor seeks to suppress. Does she seek to suppress the facts about Nadine Gordimer’s years-long criticism of white-dominated apartheid? Not at all. Why not, then? The censor has repeatedly suppressed the facts about a dramatic incident in Gordimer’s life, an incident that also is pregnant with irony (censors never take their irony supplement). That is because of her POV, which is racist.

There, I’ve said it. Unlike the censor, I don’t trade in cowardly insinuations. Or in censorship, for that matter.

As far as the censor is concerned, one may condemn white people all day long – that does not count as a “POV” – but let someone report anything about black people behaving badly, and that counts as a “POV” (i.e., that one is a racist). But the truth can never be racist. The censor seems to hate whites, and imposes her hatred on articles by promoting the casting of whites in the worst light possible, while suppressing, based on race alone, any factual reporting (forget about opinion) that casts blacks as anything but the victims of whites. If that isn’t racist, I don’t know what is.

The censor claimed she wanted a “discussion.” But she did not wait on any discussion, before censoring the earlier passage (which I restored and which she again censored). She believes that she may take initiatives, while others who disagree with her must wait for her permission ... which she will never grant!

That’s beyond even a sense of entitlement.

And how would one go about discussing the passage in question with her? Rather than show how the passage that I restored plus the quote I added was somehow guilty of “POV,” she made a blanket insinuation that I am a racist (“very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly”) regarding my OTHER “wikipedia contributions.” Thus, not only did she not discuss the passage she censored, but she sought to inflame all readers against me, and pre-emptively intimidate any who might contradict her, by insinuating that they too, must be racists. And she sought thereby to distract everyone from the fact that I wasn’t even the person who had written the original passage. (Is she now going to look up that person’s entries, and insinuate that he is a racist, too?)

I'm talking about something very ugly.

My understanding is that the censor is violating Wikipedia guidelines, by suppressing facts in the name of her racial politics (i.e., POV). I am not suppressing any facts; indeed, I would never dream of butchering an article for any reason.

As for what the censor could possibly have read from me, I have recently complained once or twice about a racist double-standard that is being promoted at Wikipedia by people who beat others over the head with the demand that they maintain a “NPOV,” while the former promote a radical POV. Specifically, the demand for a “NPOV” is used to bully whites, while racist blacks violate said rule with impunity. Thus, there really is no “NPOV” rule; rather, the “rule” is just a racist propaganda weapon. And along comes the censor, to corroborate my complaint!

Since I am fairly confident that the censor is white, I need to amend what I previously said: racist whites (in this case, whites who hate other whites based on the color of the latter’s skin; the former often refer to themselves variously as “anti-racists” or “race traitors”; you can’t make this stuff up) also violate the NPOV “rule” with abandon, while beating other whites (or those whom they believe to be white) over the head with it.

As far as I can see, the only “discussion” the censor would recognize would be the sound of her allies agreeing with her, and the silence of the graveyard, in place of her opponents’ voices.

Should the censor’s allies also censor this entry, I will at least have contradicted them, without being guilty of self-censorship or dissimulation. 70.23.177.216 01:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"you insinuated that I am a racist," If you feel that was too subtle and that I was "insinuating" something I am happy to come out clearer for you then. There is no possible reason to add this material here that is not racist. Your post is extraordinary, mr./ms. anonymous 70.23 etc. This is sickening. Sickening. You obviously make it your business to go around adding this kind of crap. I bet you've never read a word of Nadine Gordimer.DianaW 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material should be, and has been, deleted again. I agree with User:DianaW. This material is non-notable information about Gordimer's life. User:70.23.177.216, it is incumbent on you to advance some rationale for this material. For instance, did it affect Gordimer's politics or her writing -- the reason she herself is notable? Was it a race-based incident, targeting Gordimer because of her views on race, or her race? I see nothing in the information you've cited to suggest that. Without any notability on its own, the incident is simply out of place, because one doesn't typically include this kind of material in an article. I don't recall ever having seen "X was mugged" or "Y was robbed at gunpoint" when those incidents had no effect on the ways in which X or Y are notable.

Moreover, the race of the perpetrators in a criminal incident would ordinarily not be notable unless there was a specific racial basis for the incident, or some specific racial effect of the incident. You quote the "irony" quote but that does not itself give relevance. "Irony" is a POV comment by the newspaper, making an observation that is much like the one you're making here. Quoting a POV comment is still a POV. --LQ 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for laying that out clearly. I merely reacted. There's obviously no way anyone can justify adding this. I would just add that wikipedia is also not the eleven o'clock local news; it shouldn't include breaking news about fires and disasters. Even if this event did turn out to be significant in Gordimer's life, its significance would not be visible six weeks later (or a few days later, which was when the material was first added here). Any event that might affect her work or affect her politics could eventually turn out to have been notable and need to be included in a summary of her life; but if you want to see how or if it affects her politics or affects her writing, you'll have to wait to see what she writes next or does next.

I also agree that "irony" was a POV comment by the newspaper, I'd go further and say a racist comment. I read the full article and the quote was completely inappropriate; it was editorializing. There is no "irony" in the color of the skin of either the victim or perpetrators of a random crime. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that somehow the writer of the Times piece believed - or believed that Gordimer believed - that because Gordimer was an opponent of apartheid that she ought to have been immune to some random attack in her home by black people. Was the Times writer trying to suggest that if Gordimer had been attacked by white people, the incident wouldn't have been so interesting or notable? Or trying to suggest that, heck, why did she bother protesting apartheid for so many decades when, look at this, it didn't end up preventing her getting attacked by black people? As if that was why she had done it, or that she would have such an expectation. Ain't life ironic. Or something like that. The reporter's comment was either stupid or racist. Neither "breaking news" about fires, rapes, muggings etc. - even when it happens in the lives of famous people - belongs here, nor, by the same token, do off-the-cuff instant reactions by reporters at the news outlets. Neither the incident nor the reporter's comment about "irony" are notable in terms of encyclopedia content. The only reason to present it here *at all* is to push an agenda; our racist POV pusher is correct in suggesting there's probably no argument that would convince me there's any reason to report it here.DianaW 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Army-DianaW Hearings

Diana I

“I'm the person who removed this material both on the 18th and again last night. I didn't mean to do it anonymously, I guess I forgot to log in. The person who added this material yesterday did so without discussion. It had already been disputed here. I felt that since I was the last person to comment on this issue and no one had disputed my take on this, my sense that it should not be included here should stand until or unless someone comes along who'd actually care to discuss it. Examining the other wikipedia contributions of the person who inserted this material yesterday gave me a very clear impression of a POV pusher, and the POV we're talking about is ugly. If someone wants to make a case for the inclusion of reports of this attack in this article - and has a suggestion for how such reports can be made to read neutrally without extremely ugly racial overtones, please feel free.DianaW 15:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)”

(Summary: ‘One must discuss adding this material with me … but only a racist would want to add it.’)

Diana II

“Dear anonymous editor, I would like to hear your views on why this material needs to be included here. The way wikipedia works, you need to discuss controversial changes with other editors; not just repeatedly and without discussion insert things that have been previously removed. Please either discuss your changes or expect to see me remove them again. There needs to be a justification for including something that, as phrased, has very unsavory implications. Could you, for instance, state why you believe this incident, along with irrelevant comments about the race of certain individuals, needs to be included in an encyclopedia article on Nadine Gordimer?DianaW 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)”

(Summary: ‘I am an open-minded, tolerant person; please contact me to explain why you seek to add this material.’)

Diana III

“‘you insinuated that I am a racist,’ If you feel that was too subtle and that I was ‘insinuating’ something I am happy to come out clearer for you then. There is no possible reason to add this material here that is not racist. Your post is extraordinary, mr./ms. anonymous 70.23 etc. This is sickening. Sickening. You obviously make it your business to go around adding this kind of crap. I bet you've never read a word of Nadine Gordimer.DianaW 02:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)”

(Summary: ‘There is nothing to discuss, and only a sickening racist would seek to add this material.’)

Diana IV

“… The reporter's comment was either stupid or racist. Neither "breaking news" about fires, rapes, muggings etc. - even when it happens in the lives of famous people - belongs here, nor, by the same token, do off-the-cuff instant reactions by reporters at the news outlets. Neither the incident nor the reporter's comment about "irony" are notable in terms of encyclopedia content. The only reason to present it here *at all* is to push an agenda; our racist POV pusher is correct in suggesting there's probably no argument that would convince me there's any reason to report it here.DianaW 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(Summary: ‘I confess that I would never countenance any argument for including the material I cut. Only a racist would want to restore it.’) 70.23.177.216 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous continues, summarizing for me: ‘One must discuss adding this material with me … but only a racist would want to add it.’ Discuss an argument for adding it that *isn't* racist if you want to change my mind on this.

'I am an open-minded, tolerant person; please contact me to explain why you seek to add this material.’ Yes.

‘There is nothing to discuss, and only a sickening racist would seek to add this material.’ I don't know if only a sickening racist would seek to add this material. Suggest a *reason* for adding it and try me.

'I confess that I would never countenance any argument for including the material I cut. Only a racist would want to restore it.’ Only thing wrong with that summary is probably 'confess.' Again, however, you'd have to advance an argument that *isn't* racist before we'd find out if I would countenance it.DianaW 12:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really unproductive. User:70.23.177.216, I agree with User:DianaW that there is no good justification for putting this material in repeatedly. We've taken it out and justified the removal. You responded to User:DianaW with a long rambling diatribe that made a lot of assertions about Wikipedia generally, and was not responsive to the reasons this particular text should be in this particular article. You never responded to my points that (a) random criminal assaults on a notable person are not, themselves, notable; (b) the race of the perpetrators of even a notable criminal assault is not, itself, notable; and (c) commentary that race of perpetrators is "ironic" is just a perspective, a POV, and is not notable. It's also completely inappropriate for you to describe it as "reverting vandalism"; it is not vandalism for me to delete something, with justification. If you think this information is notable, then you need to rewrite it in such a way that it responds to our objections. You might consider, for example, adding more information about Nadine Gordimer's current life in England; classes she's taught; personal associates; and other information that is of comparable notability to a criminal assault. But just putting in one criminal assault, and no other information, falsely conveys the impression that this incident is more notable than many other things in her life. It is, in short, ascribing notability to the event solely because of the race. That view is well-captured by the "ironic" quote but it's patently assigning significance based on race. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Here are a few relevant policies: Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles (I haven't seen any controversy over this point other than here in this talk page, so I don't think you can rewrite it as a "controversy") and Wikipedia:NPOV dispute and Wikipedia:Describing points of view. I have zero interest in writing this and putting it in because I think it's completely uninteresting, non-notable, and a not-subtle attempt to push a racist POV. You think it's interesting, so you need to write it in such a way that it lives up to the standards of every peer editor who might see it. Right now it's not. You need to REWRITE, not continue putting in the same text. Characterizing your peer editors as pushing an anti-white POV is not addressing the problem.

If this continues, I'm going to call for some administrative or dispute resolution or whatever. --LQ 14:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Request for Comment? Maybe we should give it another day or two to see if this person keeps it up. There really can't be any doubt that the event is not notable as encyclopedia content, even if there weren't this titillating detail for racists to glom onto about the fact that her attackers' skin color was different from hers. This anonymous user has ranted about so-called anti-white racism elsewhere on wikipedia but hasn't advanced any arguments at all on this talk page for the inclusion of the report of the attack in this article, for racial reasons or any other conceivable reason. He/she certainly doesn't dispute that the racial aspect is what interests him/her. (Incidentally, Nadine Gordimer lives in a suburb of Johannesburg. She was an anti-apartheid activist for decades. This is the "irony," I presume, that the anonymous user sees in her being attacked by black men.)DianaW 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, Wikipedia:Requests for comment looks like the right process - thanks, User:DianaW, I'm still digging around to learn all the various policies. If User:70.23.177.216 adds the material in again I'll do an RFC (or you can, or they can, or whatever). --LQ 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In late October, various editors added the following section, with slight variations – with or without the adjective “black” attached to the noun “men,” and with or without reference to the assault and the wedding ring.

“She 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.”

On November 30, while reading the Nadine Gordimer Wikipedia biography, User: 70.23.177.216 determined that the section had been deleted. User: 70.23.177.216 went to the footnoted source (The London Times) of the deleted section, read it, restored the deletion, and added a supporting quotation from the source.

"She 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. The (London) Sunday Times’ Durban correspondent, R.W. Johnson observed, “There is a grim irony to the attack, for Gordimer’s novels are all focused on the inhumanities of apartheid — with blacks always the victims, not, as in this case, the perpetrators.” [2]"

An edit war ensued, with User: DianaW reverting the edit, and attacking User: 70.23.177.216 for being a “POV pusher.“

User: 70.23.177.216 again restored the deleted section, and responded in kind to User: DianaW.

User: LQ aka User: LQuilter joined forces with User: DianaW, charging User: 70.23.177.216 with having made a “subtle racist claim.”

The counter-deletions and counter-restorations have since continued apace.